Skip to main content

Full text of "Report of the proceedings of the investigation of the charges brought by Justice Walter Clark against Dr. John C. Kilgo, president of Trinity college, August 30 and 31, 1898, together with certain correspondence and proceedings preliminary thereto. With an appendix"

See other formats




Report of the Proceedings 



OF THE 



Tnvestlflation of the gbarges 

BROUGHT BY 

JUSTICE WALTER CLARK 



AGAINST 

DR. JOHN C KILQO, 

President of Trinity College, Durham, N. C. 

MADE BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF TRINITY COLLEGE, 
August 30 and 31, 1898, 

Together with Certain Correspondence and Proceedings 
Preliminary Thereto 

WITH AN APPENDIX. 



DURHAM, N. C: 

iHK Edtcator Compaxv, Printers and Binders. 

1S98. 



;^.!-m^:?^;i^».« 



Report of the Proceedings 

OF THS 

Tnvestidation of tbc Charges 

BROUGHT BY 

JUSTICE WALTER CLARK 1S4^- 1=12.^. 



^\1 

AGAINST 



•ZT^ 



DR. JOHN Cf KILQO, ^ ^^cAos^j . 

President of Trinity Colles:e, Durham, N. C. 

MADE BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF TRINITY COLLEGE, 
August 30 and 31, 1898, 

Together with Certain Correspondence and Proceedings 
Preliminary Thereto. 

WITH AN APPENDIX. 



durham, n. c: 
The Educator Compaky, Printers and Binders, 






In Exchange 
Duke University 
AUG 2 9 1934 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



Page. 

Correspondence 1-22 

Meeting of Trustees, July 18 23-41 

Beginning of Investigation, August 30 42 

Witnesses for Prosecution 53- 72 

Depositions for Prosecution 72- 86 

Witnesses for Defense 99-102 

Depositions for Defense 102-138 

Prosecutor's Opening Speech 139-140 

President Kilgo's Speech 141 

Prosecutor's Closing Speech 157 

Verdict of the Board . . 160 

Report of Special Committee 161 

Appendix 163 



SUPMRVISORS' NOTM. 



The undersigned were appointed by the Executive Committee of the 

Board of Trustees of Trinity College to supervise the publication of the 

proceedings of the investigation of the charges of Judge Clark against 

Dr. Kilgo. The stenographic reports of each meeting were made by 

Mr. D. W. Newsom, official stenographer of the Board. These notes 

have been printed without emendation or addition, so that the public 

might see for themselves all that was done. 

J. S. Bassett, 

R. L. Flowers. 
Durham, N. C, September 17, 1898. 



The Investigation of the Charges of Justice 
Walter Clark Against Dr. John C. Kilgo. 



The charges made by Judge Clark against Dr. Kilgo go 
back to the meeting of the Board of Trustees of June 7, 
1897. C)n that occasion Dr. Kilgo, in his Report to the 
Board, made the following suggestion, as is shown in the 
minutes of the meeting: 

I. That the law which requires the election of the Faculty every year 
be so changed as to elect them not oftener than every four years, if, 
indeed, any time limit should be fixed, other than the faithful discharge 
of duty. This should not refer to the election of a new member of the 
Faculty. He should always be put on probation till he proves his fitness 
for permanent election. 

The report was referred to a committee, Judges Clark and Mont- 
gomery and Dr. Swindell. The committee reported non-concurrence 
on suggestion I., Judge Clark explaining to the Board that its adoption 
was liable to lead to legal entanglements. Concurrence on the other 
suggestions of Dr. Kilgo was recommended and then the Report, vnth 
the exception of suggestion I., was adopted as a whole and ordered 
spread on the minutes. 

For further evidence on this point, see the testimony of 
Dr. Brooks, Dr. Creasy and Revs. F. A. Bishop and A. P. 
Tyer, in the proceedings of investigation of August 31, 
1898. 

About the end of June, 1897, the following correspond- 
ence occurred between Dr. Kilgo and Judge Clark : 

President's Office, Trinity College, Durham, N. C. 
Judge Walter Clark, Raleigh, N. C: 

Dear Sir:— I have recently heard that since the meeting of the Board 
of Trustees you remarked that my motion to elect professors for a four 
years' term, was really an effort on my own part to secure the presidency 
of Trinity College for a longer term. I am not disposed to believe this 
rumor, yet I think it but just to you, as well as to myself, to inform you 
of the rumor. If it is true, I would be very glad to know upon what 
basis you made the statement. I trust you are all well. 

Yours truly, 
(Signed) Jno. C. Kh^go. 

[5] 



[6] 

Raleigh, N. C, July 1, 1897. 
Rev. Dr. Jno. C, Kilgor 

Dear Sir: — Yours to hand. Whoever made the report to you has 
evidently misconceived what I said. I did not say what you state. But 
I have no objection to saying what I did say, if you will give me the 
name of your informant. Truly yours, 

(Signed) Walter Clark, 



President's Office, Trinity College, Durham, N. C. 
Judge Walter Clark, Raleigh, N. C: 

Honorable Sir: — Yours of recent date has been received. Prof. R. 
L. Flowers, of Trinity College, informed me of the statement to which 
I called your attention. I will be very glad to get this matter corrected, 
as it is of importance to me personally. Yours truly, 

(Signed) Jno. C. Kilgo. 



Raleigh, N. C, July 2, 1897. 
Dr. John C. Kilgo: 

Dear Sir : — Yours to hand. Does Prof. Flowers say that I had such 
conversation with him ? I have no recollection of any talk with him on 
the subject. If so, let him state time and place, so I can recall what 
was said. 

I have not the slightest objection to stating what I said about any 
matter that you feel any interest in, but I wish to know the party who 
states the conversation, that I may recall exactly and fully what I did 
say to him. I feel sure I had no talk with Prof. Flowers that could 
bear that construction, and he can certainly refresh my recollection by 
stating time and place, if I did. Most truly yours, 

(Signed) Walter Clark. 



President's Office, Trinity College, Durham, N. C. 
Judge Walter Clark, Raleigh, N. C: 

Dear Sir :— Yours to hand. Prof. Flowers did not tell me that he had 
had any conversation with you on the matter involved. He simply 
stated that he had heard that you made the statement to which I referred 
in my first letter. Rev. N. M. Jurney, who had heard of your making 
the statement, told me on yesterday that he understood that you made 
it to Mr. J. Gr. Brown. I have not seen Mr, Brown, nor have I commu- 
nicated with him concerning the matter. However, the only matter 
which concerns me is, whether you impugn my motive in making the 
suggestion to the Board of Trustees to elect Faculty for a longer term; 
All this is very painful to me, and I would be glad to have it cleared up. 

Yours truly, 

(Signed) Jno. C. Kilgo. 



Raleigh, N. C, July 7, 1897. 
Rev, Dr. John C. Kilgo: 

Dear Sir : — Yours to hand. I wrote you directly in reply to your 
first letter that the party, whoever he was, had misconceived what I 
said, but if you desire to know what I said I should state it, if you would 
say who alleged he had the conversation with me. 

It now turns out that Prof. Flowers told you that he heard that Rev. 
Mr. Jurney heard that some one else said that I had told Mr. Jos. G. 
Brown something like it. Thi-s is too much like ' 'the three black crows. " 



[7] 

Mr. Brown and I are fellow -trustees. As such I had a conversation 
with him. I did not understand that it was usual for such conversations 
to be repeated. In that conversation I did not use the language you 
state. But if you are curious to know what passed in a private conver- 
sation between two members of your Board, let Mr. Brown state, if he 
wishes, what it was. If it differs 'from my recollection in any way, I 
will point it out, and then you will be in possession of a private conver- 
sation and my personal views as fully as it will be possible for you to 
get information. 

When I wrote you in my first letter that what I had said was miscon- 
ceived, and when you discovered further that whatever was said was 
not publicly, but in a private conversation between two Trustees, whose 
privilege it is to discuss the management of the College in fullest freedom 
and confidence, I should have thought that you would have seen the 
propriety of letting the matter standi But if you wish to investigate 
private conferences between Trustees, and Mr. Brown wishes to repeat 
to you, I shall give you frankly and fully what I said. 

Most truly yours, 

(Signed) Walter Clark. 

You are at liberty to send a copy of this to Mr. Brown if you wish to 
pursue the matter. 

Trinity College, Durham, N. C, 
Judge Clark, Raleigh, N. C: 

Honorable Sir : —Your last letter has been received. I confess a 
great degree of surprise at what you have to say in this letter, as well as 
in your former letters. I do not think I am guilty of any impropriety 
in corresponding with you concerning this matter. I am quite capable 
of distinguishing between the business of the Trustees and an impeach- 
ment of my personal character. It is not the function of any Trustee, 
under any circumstance, to malign my character by impugning my 
motives. This is the question w;hich has been at issue and is still the 
question, I do not feel that I am called upon to work for any man or 
men who set so little value upon my personal integrity as to charge me 
with sinister motives. From all I have been able to learn, I regret to 
say that the original report has been confirmed. 

Let me assure you again that I am not concerned with any discussion 
you may have had, or may yet have, concerning the business manage- 
ment of Trinity College ; but at the same time I assure you that I will 
never submit to any Trustee assuming guardianship over my personal 
character. I do not so understand their duties. I regret this whole 
matter, and hoped in the beginning that it might be easily adjusted, but 
you have not seemed to be disposed to be generous in your treatment of 
it. No doubt you remember the time and place of your conversation. 
I leave you to settle that. At my earliest opportunity I will lay the 
matter before the Trustees for their decision. Yours truly, 

(Signed) Jno. C. Kilgo. 



Raleigh, N. C, June 14, 1897. 
Br. John C. Kilgo: 

Sir : — Yours to hand. Its tone impliedly asserts that it is a very gi'ave 
misdemeanor not to entertain for you the same good opinion which you 
hold of yourself. 

In conversation with another Trustee I told him of your growing 
unpopularity, and I expressed my thankfulness that the Trustees had 
defeated your recommendation which would have made you irremovable 



[8] 

for four years. Your recommendation that the Facultj^ should be 
elected for four years, was unheard of and unnecessary. You made no 
exception of yourself from its provisions, and as men are presumed to 
intend the consequences of their own acts, I inferred that your motive 
was to do exactly what your recommendation would have done (if we 
had adopted it), i. e., given you, as well as the professors, protection 
from removal for four years. 

The growing opposition to you, which has become intense with many, 
in the tobacco section especially ; your reported speeches attacking the 
honesty of silver men (who constitute nine-tenths of the white men of 
North Carolina) ; the attacks you have made on the State University ; 
the quarrels you have managed to get up and keep up with Dr. Kings- 
bury, Rev. Mr. Page, Mr. Webster and others, have created antagonism 
which must shorten your stay, unless you are protected by a four years' 
term or some influence not based on public esteem. I am sorry that 
your energies are so little occupied that you are even now seeking to add 
a controversy with myself to your amusement. 

The attempts of Northern multi-millionaires to capture by gifts and 
endowments the control of the education of the children of the people, 
has created a sensitiveness on that subject in the public mind". The 
charges in the public prints, however, intimating that the consideration 
of the gift by members of the Tobacco Trust to Trinity was that the 
youth there were to be proselyted and taught political heresy foreign to 
the faith of their fathers, would have had small effect with so just a 
people as ours, if, by your parade of your gold standard views (which 
must have an untoward effect on the minds of the young men in your 
care), and your reiterated and ostentatious assertions of your superiority 
to public opinion had not given color to their charge. If your persever- 
ance in that line of conduct shall deepen in the public mind suspicion 
into conviction (however unjust it may be in fact), wealthy syndicates 
may give you money, but the public will not send you boys. 

In 1868 the State University had behind it the State Treasury and the 
then dominant political party, but it failed, because the public opinion 
of those who furnish college students was against it. You may think, 
however, you can carry it over an adverse public sentiment. You will 
know better after you have tried it. 

I regret to write you this. Your administration promised success, 
and you ought to have won it with less ability than your friends credit 
you with possessing. 

I do not understand your threat to lay my views before the Trustees, 
but as you somehow seem to think that the Board has jurisdiction of the 
offense, my \dews are herein plainly expressed, that there may be no 
controversy as to what they are. 

(Signed) Walter Clark. 

After this correspondence nothing further transpired till 
June 6, 1898, when Dr. Kilgo, as he had notified Judge 
Clarke in his last letter, brought the matter before the Board 
of Trustees. The following is all as the minutes of this 
meeting show on the subject: 

Dr. John C. Kilgo rose to a question of personal privilege and read the 
following correspondence between the Hon. Walter Clark and himself. 

[See correspondence, — pp. 5, 6, 7 and 8.] 



[9] 

Rev. G. A. Oglesby moved that a committee of three be appointed 
from the Board to request Jndge Clark to tender his resignation as a 
Trustee of Trinity College. 

Rev. F. A. Bishop moved to amend by declaring the place of Judge 
Clark as Trustee vacant. 

After remarks by Rev. N. M. Jurney, J. G. Brown and Rev. G. A- 
Oglesby, Rev. T. N. Ivey moved that the whole matter be referred to a 
committee of five to investigate and report back to the Board, which 
motion after remarks by Col. E, J. Parrish was carried. The -chair 
appointed Rev. G. A. Oglesby, Col. G. W. Flowers, Revs. W. C. Wilson' 
F. A. Bishop and S. B. Turrentine, committee. . 

Following are the minutes of June 7, 1898. 

The Committee on Correspondence between Judge Walter Clark and 
Dr. John C. Kilgo, submitted the following report : 

We, the committee to whom was referred the matters of correspond- 
ence between Dr. J. C. Kilgo and Judge Walter Clark, after careful 
consideration, respectfully submit the following : 

Resolved, 1st, That we re-affirm our hearty endorsement of Dr. J. C. 
Kilgo and his administration as President of Trinity College, and pledge 
to him our continued support. 

2d, That we deprecate and condemn the Vincharitable and unfair 
spirit manifested by Judge Walter Clark in his correspondence with 
and charges againg Dr. J. C. Kilgo. 

3rd, That" we hereby, in the light of ample evidence, positively affirm 
that Judge Clark's charge against Dr. Kilgo as including himself to be 
elected as President of Trinity College for four years, which was to 
secure for himself "protection from removal for four years," is not only 
unsupported, but is actually contradicted by facts. 

4th, That it is the sense of the Board of Trustees that Judge Walter 
Clark ought to resign as Trustee of Trinity College. 

G. A. Oglesby, 

F. A. Bishop 
W. C. Wilson, 

G. W. Flowers, 
S. B. Turrentine. 

After remarks by Col. E. J. Parrish, Rev. G. A Oglesby, S. B. Tur 
rentine and F. A. Bishop, on motion the report was adopted. 

Moved by Rev. N. M. Jurney that the Secretary be directed to send 
Judge Clark a copy of the report of the committee which motion was 
carried. 

The following statement appeared in the Charlotte, N. C, 
Observer^ June 25, 1898. 

JUDGE CLARK'S RESIGNATION AS A TRUSTEE ASKED FOR. 

It is learned in Charlotte that a controversy by letter has recently been 
in progress between Judge Walter Clark, of the Supreme Court, and 
Dr. J. C. Kilgo, D. D., President of Trinity College, and that at a meet- 
ing of the Trustees of the institution last week, Dr. Kil o laid the 
carrespondence before the Board, asked for an investigation of the 
charges brought by Judge Clark, and stated that if they were sustained 



[ 10 J 

his resignation would be forthcoming. The investigation was made, the 
result being that Dr. Kilgo was sustained and that the resignation of 
Judge Clark as a member of the Board of Trustees was requested. 

The Raleigh News and Observer^ June 26, 1898, con- 
tained the following correspondence given out by Judge 
Clark: 

Trinity College, Durham, N. C, June 15, 1898. 
Hon. Walter Clark, Raleigh, N. C: 

My Dear Sir:— At the annual meeting of the Trustees of Trinity 
College, held June 6, 1898, the correspondence between Dr. John C. 
Kilgo and yourself was referred to a committee who made a report on 
same, and I was instructed to send you a copy, which please find enclosed. 

Respectfully, 
V. Ballard, 
Secretary of Board of Trustees. 

The following is a copy of the report enclosed : 
[See p. 9.] . . 

To this the following reply was sent : 

Raleigh, N. C, June 17, 1898. 
V. Ballard, Esq., Secretary, etc.: 

My Dear Sir : — Yours to hand yesterday. 

It contained the first notice I had of the appointment of the committee 
or of any investigation by it. 

"Will you please inform me at whose instance the committee was 
raised, and as it had 'ample evidence' for its conclusions will you inform 
me what witnesses went before it, what documentary evidence was pre- 
sented, if any, and if any argument was made before it except on Dr. 
Kilgo's side. You will please state whether the report of the committee 
was adopted by the Board. If it was, kindly give me the names of those 
voting on it and if there was no roll call, please give me the names of 
those actually present at that time as far as you can recall them. 

The re-election of Dr. Kilgo is evidence that the majority of the Trus- 
tees (certainly a majority at least of those present) were of opinion that 
he is a fit person to carry on the college, as the chief agent oi" servant of 
the Board, I belong to the minority on that question, but I am not 
aware of any provision of law that authorizes the majority, or any 
portion of them to censure me for my divergence of views on that 
subject or request me to resign. As the committee must have 
thought they had such authority, will you please cite me the provision 
under which they acted. 

I am sorry to put you to so much trouble, but it is so unusual among 
North Carolinians to pass in judgment upon any man and condemn him 
in his absence, without notice and without opportunity to be heard, that 
I would be glad of any information you can give me from your records 
or from your own knowledge as to this very remarkable transaction. 

Believe me, with very great respect, 

Walter Clark. 

P. S. — If there is any of the above information which you cannot give, 
by sending a copy of this letter co each of the committee possibly they 
can furnish it. 



[ 11 ] 

The following reply was received : 

Hon. Walter Clark, Raleigh, N. C. : 

My Dear Sir ; — I beg to acknowledge receipt of your favor of the 17th 
and duly note contents. 

In my first letter to you I failed to inform you that the report of the 
committee was adopted, and now inform you it was. 

The Executive Committee will meet one day next week. I will then 
submit your letter to them, and write you further. 

I have the honor to be, yours respectfully, 

V. Ballard, Sec. 

After the committee met the following letter was received : 

Hon Walter Clark, Raleigh, N. C: 

My Dear Sir :— At a meeting of the Executive Committee of Trinity 
College, held yesterda3^ I submitted to them your letter. 

It was the opinion of the committee that your letter required no 
further answer, you having already had copy of the report of the com- 
mittee appointed by the Board of Trustees. 

I have the honor to be, yours very respectively, 

V. Ballard, Sec. 

To which the following reply was made : 

Raleigh, N. C, June 25, 1898. 
James H. Southgate, Esq. , President Board Trustees Trinity College : 

Dear Sir : — I am in receipt of Mr. Ballard's letter in which he informs 
me that your Executive Committee declines to permit him to give me 
the information I requested. 

As a Trustee I have a legal right to any information contained in the 
minutes and I should have thought as a measure of courtesy and of just 
dealing to one who had been afforded no chance of being heard, that you 
would have given me the fullest information as to all proceedings affect- 
ing myself even that not reduced to writing. 

If any portion of the Board of Trustees had stated to me in a Christian 
spirit that it was unpleasant to have a difference between Dr. Kilgo and 
myself and that it would smooth matters if I would resign, I would 
cheerfully and promptly have done so. I had no intention of such a 
wish from any one. On the contrary, at Dr. Kilgo's instigation a com- 
mittee is appointed, I am given no notice, no chance to put in evidence, 
nor present an argument, I am tried, found guilty and requested to 
resign. When I even then ask for the names of the witnesses and the 
nature of evidence, and the names of the trustees who voted against me 
so that I may see what weight is to be given to their wishes and if there 
was a majority present, lam abruptly told I am entitled to know noth- 
ing but the verdict. Then in addition to that, this morning information 
is given to the public, through the Charlotte Observer, that I have been 
asked to resign. 

The motive which actuates such proceedings is too plain to need com- 
ment. A verdict obtained by a jury appointed at the instance of the 
prosecution without any evidence or argument except from that side, 
and no opportunity to me to give any, and with refusal subsequently of 
all information as to the proceedings, will command no respect from any 
impartial or intelligent man. I shall give no weight to it and shall 
decline to accede to any request based upon it. • 

I think I know the 185,000 Methodist people in North Carolina, with 
whom I was raised and among whom I have lived all my life, well 
enough to say that the}^ will give no weight to proceedings conducted in 



[ 12 J 

snch a manner They will at once divine who "ran" the proceeding® 
and that the motive was not the good of the college nor the vindication of 
justice, but to gratify the wounded vanity of Dr. Kilgo, and vengeance 
on the man who had ruffled it. As there were expressions in my letter 
not gratifying to those who make their millions by illegal trusts (at 
the expense of the toiling masses) there were doubtless some who felt it 
was necessary to propitiate them by condemning, unheard, the man who 
had been bold enough to let it be seen he did not fear "injustice, though 
wrapped in gold." 

I would have resigned as I have said, if requested in a proper spirit for 
the good of the college. But if a trial had been instituted on and oppor- 
tunity given, I could, and would, have laid before the committee, evidence 
that should have satisfied an impartial body of men that I was justified 
in every word of my letter of the 14th of July, 1897. 

For eleven months I heard not a whisper about that letter and then on 
the 15th of June, 1898, I am suddenly informed I have been tried, 
found guilty and asked to resign for having written it. In his letter of 
July 13th, Dr. Kilgo stated that he would lay my conversation with Mr. 
Brown before the trustees, but I was aware they had no more jurisdic- 
tion to pass upon it than to try a law suit between Dr. Kilgo and mj'-self , 
and I did not dream, no one would have dreamed, that if the Board 
assumed jurisdiction any committee would try the matter without giv- 
ing me notice and opportunity to produce evidence — but that was the 
last thing Dr. Kilgo intended I should have a chance to do. 

This proceeding, Mr. Southgate, was not instituted for the benefit of 
the college. It was palpably done to soothe Dr. Kilgo 's vanity and to 
placate the Trust that more money might be obtained from it. 

None know better than yourself that the Trustees had no jurisdiction 
of the matter. I was not elected by them. I was their peer. If the 
Board are judges I was one of the judges and not subject to them. At 
the meeting of the Board a year ago a resolution to endorse the Common 
School System of the State was introduced. You spoke against it. You 
said that it was contrary to primary right to tax one man to educate the 
children of another ; that ' 'if a man would admit he was a pauper you 
would contribute as charity to help educate his children, and you would 
contribute to educate orphans who were paupers, but you protested 
against being taxed for the common schools ; that it was socialism, and 
you would not pander to such sentiments. ' ' 1 think I quote your exact 
language. You said more, of course, and eloquently and strongly. To 
the credit of the Board, the resolution was adopted over you, but such 
language, coming from the President of the Board of Trustees of Trinity 
College is more calculated to damage the College than my views of Dr. 
Kilgo, expressed to him in a private letter. If the Trustees have juris- 
diction of the views of its members, why did they not try those utterances 
and repudiate them by requesting you to resign ? 

Recently Dr. Kilgo, in an affluence of sycophancy, led a procession to 
the house of Mr. Duke, and in a public speech extolled him as the 
greatest man the State had ever produced, and as superior to all the 
sacrifices of blood and treasure the State had ever made; that in com- 
parison with his gift of money, the primacy at Mecklenburg, the 
thousands who had offered up their lives at Moore's Creek, at King's 
Mountain, and all these years down to Cardenas, were as dust in the 
balance. In substance he said: "My Lord Duke, Give Us Money and 
Your Name Shall Be Exalted Above All Names." This deification of 
wealth — no matter how obtained — is not Christian education. This is 
not the language, these are not the thoughts, which a college president 
should teach his pupils. How much personal gratuity had so grateful 
a man received ? Why did the Board not try him ? You have jurisdic- 



[ 13 ] 

tion of him. He is your elected servant to manage under your supervi- 
sion this great institution, which the Methodist church in North Carolina 
has placed in your hands. 

Dr. Kilgo's reputation in South Carolina was that of a wire-puller, of 
the ward politician type. His performances in this State have justified 
his reputation. Length of years has not reformed him. He was a short 
time in Tennessee. One of the most distinguished members of our 
church in that State (not a layman) said to me: "We know the fellow 
w^ll. He is a scrub — a scrub politician. " If your committee wanted 
information, I could have given it to them. Dr. Kilgo did not intend 
they should have it. He got up the prosecution He put in the evidence. 
He gets the report to suit him ; my respectful request for information as 
to how it was all done, is denied, and then it is promptly advertised to 
the public that I have been requested to resign. Trinity College has 
put forward its claim for patronage that it creates Christian character. 
Is this a specimen of it ? 

Do you expect Trinity to succeed when, as is now well known, that 
no man can remain as a Trustee who is not acceptable to this creative 
of the Board, who assumes to be its master ? Can it oommand public 
respect when the language and conduct of its President would make it 
an annex to Duke's cigarette factory — an asset of the trust through 
which boys may be educated in due respect for the superiority of great 
wealth, when acquired through a trust over the sacrifice of life by thou- 
sands (who had nothing else to offer) at the call of their country. 

I do not believe that any considerable portion of the board voted for 
the resolution, and that few of those, if any, outside the Duke-Kilgo 
syndicate, knew the violation of the elementary principles of justice by 
which it had been obtained. 

To the honest, fair minded, intelligent people of North Carolina, and 
especially to the people of the honored church of which I have been a 
member for over thirty years, I am willing to submit this matter, and 
I will accept their verdict — not vours. Yoiws truly, 

(Signed)" Walter Clark. 

In addition to this correspondence the following inter- 
view was published in the same issue: 

We asked the Judge how the matter began. He said : 

"At the meeting of Trustees a year ago Dr. Kilgo brought in a report 
in which a paragraph instantly arrested my attention This paragraph 
recommended that the Faculty should be elected for four years, instead 
of from year to year as usual. I opposed that recommendation, and it 
being referred to a committee, composed of Judge W. J. Montgomery 
and myself, we recommended that that paragraph be not adopted, and 
it was voted down. A few days later, having visited the tobacco belt 
and heard the adverse criticisms of Trinity College under Dr. Kilgo's 
management, I mentioned the matter to Mr. Joseph G. Brown, and 
said : 'You see now we were wise to vote down that recommendation of 
Dr. Kilgo to give him a term of four years. ' Mr. Brown asked if I 
thought that was Dr. Kilgo's object, to which I said that the recom- 
mendation was broad enough to embrace the President, and from what 
I knew of Dr. Kilgo's previous reputation and his course in this State, I 
thought he had not intended to leave himself cut — or words to that 
effect. 

' 'This was a conversation with a fellow-trustee, and I expected to hear 
no more about it, but some 'Ransey Sniffles' got hold of it, and I received 
a letter from Dr. Kilgo asking if I had used such expressions. Desiring 



[ 14 ] 

no controversy, I replied, asking his informant. After some correspond- 
ence. Dr. Kilgo wrote that it was a conversation with Mr. Brown. Still 
desiring to avoid a controversy I wrote that what passed between Mr. 
Brown and myself was a private, not a public, conversation, was 
between us as Trustees about college matters, was not intended to injure 
him, and that he ought not to press the matter. Then Dr. Kilgo wrote 
a peremptory letter winding up by threatening to lay the matter before 
the Trustees. To this I replied : 

[For letter, see page 7.] 

1^0 the letter which Judge Clark wrote to Mr. Southgate 

(see p. 11) that gentleman replied as follows: 

Durham, N. C. June 28, 1898. 
Judge Walter Clark, Raleigh, N. C: 

Dear Sir — Responding to your favor of the 25tb inst., you will recall 
being present at the June, 1897, meeting of the Trustees when the Presi- 
dent's report was referred to a sub-committee consisting of yourself, Judge 
Montgomery and Dr. Swindell. The first recommendation in this report 
was "That the law which requires the election of the Faculty every year 
be so changed as to elect them not oftener than every four years, it in- 
deed any time should be fixed other than the faithful discharge of duty. 
This should not refer to the election of a new member of the Faculty. 
He should always be put on probation 'till he proves his fitness for a per- 
manent election." One of the Trustees moved that the President of the 
College be included in this recommendation, but the motion was with- 
drawn at the request of Dr. Kilgo. Your committee reported non-con- 
currence on this item of the report, "Judge Clark explaining to the Board 
that its adoption w^s liable to lead to legal entanglements.'' Dr Kilgo 
promptly arose, explained his motive in making the lecommendation, 
which was to avoid having the members of the Faculty in suspense as to 
their election from year to year, and gracefully consented to a withdrawal 
of the suggestion because of the light you threw on it from a legal stand- 
point of observation. In all other particulars the report was concurred 
in and adopted as a whole and ordered spread upon the minutes In the 
organization of the College, its literature, in the method of approach to 
and disposition of this matter, there appears to be no real way to con- 
found Dr. Kilgo, the President, with the Faculty, or to misconstrue the 
benign effort of one in behalf of the other. 

You will further recall that later in this June, 1897, meeting, along 
towards adjournment, a resolution was adopted by a rising vote, you 
voting, cordial I3' approving and endorsing the efforts of the Faculty, 
especially of Dr. Kilgo. the President of Trinity College, in behalf of 
higher Christian education with a pledge to encourage and aid them more 
actively and unitedly in the future than in the past. This meeting of the 
Trustees was harmonious, pleasant, in which all, including yourself, ap- 
peared to take an active, intelligent interest. 

Within three weeks of adjournment reports reached the President of 
the College which were calculated to damage him personally and, if true, 
the institution which he so ably represents, the nature of which is set 
forth in the correspondence which follows and with which you are con- 
versant. 

[For this correspondence, see. pp. 5, 6, 7 and 8..] 

From this correspondence opportunity abundant was given to deny or 
retract, and failing to secure either, the inference was clear that you 



[ 15 ] 

meant what you said and said what you meant, whereupon the President 
of the College notified you in his last letter thit at his earliest oppor- 
tunity he would lay the matter before the Trustees for their action. In 
your letter of July 14th you acknowledge this notice, enlarge and empha- 
size the criticism, and plainly express your views that there may be no 
controversy as to what the}- are. You were present in the meeting of 
the Board when the- order was passed that its regular meetings shall be 
held during commencement week at the call of the President; and the 
Secretary of the Board informs me that he sent to you, in common with 
all the other members of the Board, a notice of the June, 1898, meeting, 
so that with your acknowledgment of the notice given by Dr. Kilgo, that 
this personal matter would be brought before the Trustees, and the filing 
of your view^s in full — that there might be no misunderstanding as to what 
they were, with the further notice that the Board would meet Monday, 
June 6th, 1898. the Trustees cannot be blamed for your absence or the 
absence of additions of amendments to the writlen bill of complaints 
against Dr. Kilgo. 

The Trustees met June 6th. 1898. according to call, and the following 
were noted present : 

Rev. A. P. Tyer, Rev. G. A. Oglesby, Rev. J. R Brooks, D. D., Rev. 
W. C. Norman, Mr. V. Ballard, Hon. W. J. Montgomery, Mr. R. A. 
Mayer, Mr. A. H. Stokes, Rev. P L. Groom, D. D., Mr. J. H. Southgate, 
Mr. E. J. Parrish, Rev. S. B. Turrentine, Mr. B. N. Duke, Mr. W. H. 
Branson, Mr P. H. Hanes. Rev T. N. Ivey, Rev. N. M. Jurney, Rev. F. 
A. Bishop, Mr. W. R. Odell, Dr. W. S. Creasy, Mr. J. G. Brown, Col. G. 
W. Flowers, Prof. O. W. Carr, Rev. W. C Wilson, Rev. J. B. Hurley. 

Two Trustees had died during the year, one had removed to another 
Conference, one was infirm and could not come, another was out of the 
State; so that out of a possible thirty-one, there were twenty-five present. 

When opportunity presented, Dr. Kilgo rose to a question of personal 
privilege, the right enjoyed by every member of a deliberative body, 
stated his grievance, read the correspondence between himself and you, 
and on motion the said correspondence was referred to a committee of 
five worthy men — rrien who perhaps rank second to none in North Caro- 
lina — in according to you honor, respect and fraternal devotion, namely: 
Revs. G. A. Oglesby, F. A. Bishop, W. C. Wilson, S. B. Turrentine, and 
Col. G W. Flowers, which reference resulted not in a trial of yourself, as 
you seem to think, but the investigation of statements that you had made 
concerning another, and if any one was on trial it was Dr. Kilgo. Neither 
of you appeared before the committee, which, after a careful considera- 
tion of the correspondence, herein referred to, brought in a report to the 
Board of reafiirmation and a hearty endorsement of Dr. Kilgo and his 
administration, with the pledge of continued support; a deprecation and 
condemnation of the uncharitable and unfair spirit manifested by you in 
your correspondence with and charges against him; a positive affirmation, 
in the light of ample evidence, that your charges against him as includ- 
ing himself to be elected as President of Trinity College for four years, 
which was to secure for himself • protection from removal for four years," 
were not only unsupported, but actually contradicted by facts, and the 
expression of the opinion that you ought to resign as a Trustee of the 
College. 

These conclusions, in the form of resolutions, sent you by the Secre- 
tary. Mr. V. Ballard, were read, discussed and carried, there being only 
one dissenting vote. Three of the Trustees are known to have been 
absent when this committee's report was adopted. One was sick, two 
others left the afternoon before and arrived too late to take part in the 
proceedings the following morning. 

Your request for data, made of the Executive Committee through the 



[ 16 ] 

Secretary, Mr. Ballard, could not then be granted for the reason that so 
far as you were concerned the case was considered closed until something 
else appeared. Your every complaint against Dr. Kilgo has been inves- 
tigated with the result as announced to you and to that you were referred. 
Concerning the publicity given to the subject through the Charlotte 
Observer, and in which you find justification for publishing your letter in 
the papers, the following telegrams are submitted : 

Durham, N. C, June 27, 1898. 

Mt . J. P. Caldwell, Editor Charlotte Observer, Charlotte, N. C : 

Item in Saturday's issue of Observer concerning Trinity College and 
Judge Clark was not authorized by our Board. Will you kindly inform 
me by wire at whose instance or on whose information the item was 
based. J. H. South gate. 

President Trustees, Trinity College. 



Chari^ottk, N. C, June 27, 1898. 
/as. H. Southgate: 

See to-day's Observer. It is enough for me to say that item "Clark's 
resignation asked" was furnished without procurement or even knowledge 
of anybody connected with Trinity. 

J. P. CaIvDWETX, 

Editor Observer. 

Respecting the question of jurisdiction: 

First. You will admit the right of a deliberative body to investigate 
charges against its members. 

Second You will admit the right of our Board to deal with Dr. Kilgo, 
an employee of the Board. 

Third. By reference to section three of the College charter you will 
find that no person can be elected a Trustee by the Conference till he has 
first been recommended by a majority of the Trustees at a regular meet- 
ing; and that the Trustees shall have power to remove any member of 
this body who may remove beyond the boundary of the State or who may 
refuse or neglect to discharge the duties of a Trustee. 

If a failure to respond to that part of your letter which refers to the 
political opinions or the professional or business calling of any one or 
more members of the Board should cause you to think there is an unpar- 
donable degree of weakness and infirmity and a species of tyranny mani- 
fest in the life of this beloved institution, let it go at that. The record 
fails to show where any one connected with it has suffered or been dis- 
counted for opinion's sake in matters of public policy. This record speaks 
for itself no less than the meritorious work the institution is doing, and 
this, after all, is and should be the standard by which it will be measured. 
So judged, it is not to succeed; it is pronounced a success. Already the 
pride of North Carolina Methodism its phenomenal growth has attracted 
the admiring gaze of the church at large. It courts not honor nor popu- 
larity save as these may come through right thinking and right acting. 

With assurances, if such be necessary, that such an institution may be 
depended upon to defend the character of the man who bears its standard 
before the people from the mountains to the sea against unjust and un- 
warranted attacks by whomsoever made. 

Very truly yours, 

J. H. Southgate, 
Pres. Board Trustees, Trinity College. 



[ 17 ] 

■ 

To this letter Judge Clark made the following reply: 

Raleigh, N. C, June 30, 1898. 
J. H Southgate, Esq., President Board Trustees: 

Dear Sir — The day of miracles has returned: "The dumb are made to 
speak." Information abruptly denied to me has been (in part) conceded 
to an outraged public opinion, but with so little clearness that the miracle 
was hardly worth working. 

Your theory of defence, that it was Dr. Kilgo and not myself who was 
on trial, does credit to your ingenuity, and w^ould be convenient if cor- 
rect. The verdict and judgment show w^ho was intended to be tried and 
condemned. Read your resolutions: 

"We, the committee, to whom was referred the matter of correspond- 
ence between Dr. John C. Kilgo and Judge Walter Clark, respectfully sub- 
mit the following: 

^'Resolved 2. That we deprecate and CONDEMN the uncharitable and 
unfair spirit manifested by Judge Clark in his correspondence with and 
charges against Dr. Kilgo. 

''Resolved 4. That it is the sense of the Board of Trustees that Judge 
Walter Clark ought to' resign as Trustee of Trinity College." 

If I was not on trial, then without a trial you deprecate and '"condemn" 
me, one of your associates, and find that I have been guilty of beinf "un- 
fair'' and "uncharitable." If you did not find me guilty, upon what w^as 
it that you based your other resolution that I "ought to resign ?'' I would 
like to be informed. If only Dr. Kilgo was on trial, the resolutions ex- 
pressing your satisfaction with him would have ended the matter. But 
when you go further and condemn me you either did so by trial without 
notice (as I complained) or without any trial, as you now assert, which is 
making the matter worse. 

I notice you deny none of the material points of my complaint, 
(i.) Though the telephone in the building in which your committee 
sat is immediately connected with the telephone in ths court-room in 
Raleigh, where I was, and three trains a day went from Raleigh to Dur- 
ham, no summons, nor even a whisper ever came to me, in that or any 
other way, during your session of three or four days, that I was being inves- 
tigated and condemned. It will not do to say that I because I knew the 
Board would be in session that I was "constructively', fixed with notice 
that Dr. Kilgo 's threat to lay the matter before the Board would be follow- 
ed by my trial and condemnation. As well say that because every citi- 
zen of the county knows when court will meet, that when one man says 
to another "I will lay the matter before the grand jury," that the latter 
can be sentenced by the Jury, without notice and without chance to offer 
evidence or argument. 

(2.) You give no excuse why, on my application, after judgment, you 
refused me even the limited information you now give the public. 

(3.) You have shown no jurisdiction in your Board to sit in judgment 
on me. And if your only object was to endorse Dr. Kilgo, did he want a 
"whitewashing" only, for it is nothing more when no one is given a 
chance to be heard in opposition. 

(4.) If your Board is empowered to sit in judgment on the views of its 
members, you do not answer why it did not try your views on matters of 
public importance as well as my private views as to Dr. Kilgo. 

(5.) You say nothing as to the laudatory declarations of Dr. Kilgo that 
the possessor of wealth, who gives money to the college which pays his 
salary, is the greatest possible object of respect. These degrading views 
are not proper to be taught college students in North Carolina without re- 
buke and I know the Board by its silence would not be taken as endors- 
ing them. 

These things you do not answer. 



[ 18 ] 

As to the new matter, that after Dr. KilgcT introduced the recommen- 
dation for a four years' term, that in reply to my obiection he stated ver- 
bally that it did not embrace himself, I solmenly aver I never heard it. 
"The written word abides,'' and proves the fact I asserted. The recom- 
mendation in his report, is broad enough to embrace the President, and 
if he did not wish to include himself, why did he not exclude himself. If 
he made that verbal exclusion of himself why did he make no reference 
to it in all his correspondence with me and leave it unasserted till now? 

In my first letter to him I stated that the conversation was miscon- 
ceived for my rerhark was not as to his motive, but upon the fact that it 
would have given him a four years' term, and that we were wise to vote 
his suggestion down. To Mr. Brown's query, I had said, I "didn't think 
he intended to leave himself out." In a desire to avoid a squabble with 
him I wrote him it was a private conversation and that he did not have it 
reported to him exactly right. It is his own folly that he misunderstood 
my repugnance to controversy as awe for his importance. 

In reference to the advertisement of the matter by the Charlotte Ob- 
server, the information did not go from me, it must have gone from some 
one cognizant of the action of the Committeej Who was it.-* I recall to 
your attention a statement in that publication which throws a flood of 
light on the "true inwardness of this matter." Says the Charlotte Obser- 
ver article: "Dr. Kilgo laid the correspondence before the Board, asked 
for an iflvestigation of the charges brought by Judge Clark and stated 
that if they were sustained his resignation would be forthcoming. The 
investigation was made, the result being that Dr. Kilgo was sustained 
and that the resignation of Judge Clark was requested." Now look, 
without prejudice, at the letter of July 14, 1897, which is the only letter 
which can be construed 10 make any charges. What are they? Read it 
again, I pray you. i. That Dr. Kilgo seemed to think it an offence for 
me not to have as high opinion of him as he had of himself. 2. I admit- 
ted I had said that '-owing to Dr. Kilgo's growing unpopularity it was 
cause of thankfulness that the Trustees had defeated his recommenda- 
tion which would have made him irremovable for four years (as any law- 
yer looking at the report will say would have been its legal effect) and 
that I inferred that he intended just what his recommendation would have 
accomplished, if it had passed. 3. That his quarrels with Dr. Kings- 
bury, Rev. Mr. Page and others and his reported speeches assailing the 
honesty of silver men would shorten his stay unless he was protected by 
a four year's term or some influence other than public esteem, and that 
if he progressed further along that line, wealthy Syndicates might give 
him money; but the public would not send him boys. Read the letter 
over and that is all you can find in it. Yet that is the letter whose charges 
the committee find on "ample evidence" were not sustained, under Dr. 
Kilgo's threat to resign if they did otherwise, and for writing which (at 
Dr. Kilgo's insistence) I am convicted of high treason and requested to 
resign. 

There are many most excellent men on the board. Thej^ did not scru- 
tinize this matter. Your letter shows you did not. Dr. Kilgo has satis- 
fied the Board that he is the only man who can get big donations from 
the cigarette trusty that he is the only man who can "milk the cow" and 
when the awful threat was made that if he was not "sustained" they 
would lose their milker, he was "sustained" and I doubt if one in tea of 
the Trustees ever noticed the other part of the resolutions "condemning'' 
me or that it occurred to them that they were committing the injustice of 
passing in judgment on an absent man, without a hearing or an oppor- 
tunity to be heard. It is true there is wide complaint among the public 
that the cow makes her milk by eating up the collard patch of other peo- 
ple and that it is against the law for her to run at large (for both State 



[ 19 ] 

and National law declares trusts illegal) but then the milk is good and 
you have kept your milker. It was unjust to condemn me without a 
hearing, but then barbarian that I am, I ought to have said nothing to 
irritate the feelings of this artist in milking, whose touch is so soothing 
and irresistable and whose services are so indispensable. 

In the days of glorious old Dr. Braxton Craven the college did not find 
an employee of that kind necessary or desirable. It stood broad-based 
on popular support, and though it was remote in the forests of Randolph, 
his number of students ran up to a higher figure than we can now boast, 
with all our magnificent '"plant" and endowment. He turned out sturdy, 
self-respecting, young graduates who have been an honor, a blessing and 
an ornament to our Church and State. Such sentiments as we now hear 
did not then echo from the President's chair. I would that we could look 
upon this like again. Yours truly, 

WaIvTer Clark. 

The following interview with Dr. Kilgo was given to a 
representative of the press on July 2, 1898: 

"I have read the interview with Judge Clark and the letter from him 
to Mr. Southgate. I have also read Mr. Southgate's reply and think it 
covers all the points of which the trustees had cognizance. In this 
matter from the beginning till now, I confess I have been unable to 
understand Judge Clark. I had regarded him as a man of ability and 
sincerity, and felt that he would act in fullest sincerity at all times 
with an employee of any board of which he was a member. In my 
dealings with the Trustees I have always tried to be frank and clear ; so 
when some of my professors expressed distaste to annual elections, and 
knowing that Wofford College w^ith which I was connected when I 
came to Trinity, elected its Faculty for a term of four years, I suggested 
such a change to the Board. One of the Trustees moved to include the 
President in the suggestion, and I objected to the amendment. Judge 
Clark objected to the proposition oh the grounds of possible legal en- 
tanglements, and I w^ithdrew the proposition. The Trustees did not 
vote on it. I never once questioned the frankness of Judge Clark. 
Shortly after his action Judge Montgomery presented resolutions in 
which was expressed confidence in me and my work, and pledging to 
me and the Faculty the more earnest support of the Trustees. These 
resolutions were adopted by a rising vote. Judge Clark voting. Of 
course, I felt gratified at. this expression on the part of those under 
whose authority I work. In about three weeks Professor Flowers said 
to me that he had Ijeard that Judge Clark said that I recommended to 
the Trustees the election of the Faculty for a longer term in order to 
secure the Presidency for a longer term. I was pained at the rumor, 
and could not think it true, believing him a frank and sincere man. I 
felt sure that he would have faced me with it then and there, and saved 
the church and college from 'a trickster,' but nothing of the kind was 
intimated, so far as I ever knew. Then the Judge had stood up, thus 
casting his vote for the resolutions commending me. He is also a prom- 
inent member of the Methodist church and as such I felt sure he would 
.not speak any evil of a Methodist preacher, or any other preacher, 
unless he had just grounds, and in that case he would prefer charges in 
the regular way, and being a Supreme Court Judge, he would be too 
prudent to start such a rumor. So when I wrote my first letter to him. 
I said, 'I am not disposed to believe this rumor, yet I think it but just 
to you, as well as myself, to inform you of the rumor. ' You remember 
in his first letter tome he said, T did not say what you state.' But 
'I have no objection to saying what I did say if you will give me the 
name of your informant. ' 



• [ 20 ] 

"The tone of this reply to my letter gave me to understand that he 
had said something, so at once I gave him my informant. In the 
Judge's interview, published in the News and Observer, he says : 'After 
that it was a conversation with Mr. Brown. ' This is not the fact as you 
will see by reference to our correspondence as published in your paper. I 
did not know that Mr. Brown had any connection with it, but wrote him 
immediately that Professor Flowers had told me. At that time no one 
had spoken to me about the matter, except Professor Flowers. As soon 
as I learned through Mr. Jurney that Mr. Brown was connected with 
it, I wrote the fact to Judge Clark. I regret that the Judge, who is ac- 
customed to handling testimony, overlooked this fact. To my surprise 
his reply to my second letter did not bring what he had said, and which 
he promised on condition that I would give him my informant. I com- 
plied with his condition, he did not. In the meantime I heard more 
about the matter, the Judge having carried his criticisms of me to men 
not even members of the Methodist church, much less of the Board of 
Trustees. I began to feel that he was trying to injure me for cause 
unknown to me. In my third letter I said; 'Professor Flowers did not 
tell me that he had had any conversation with you on the matter 
involved. He simply stated that he had heard that you made the state- 
ment to which I referred in my first letter. Rev. N. M. Jurney, who 
had heard of your making the statement, told me on yesterday that he 
understood that you made it to Mr. J. G. Brown. I have not seen Mr. 
Brown, nor have I communicated with him concerning the matter. ' In 
reply to this, July 7, the Judge says : 'It now turns out that Prof. Flowers 
told you that he heard that Rev. Mr. Jurney heard that some one else 
said that I had told Mr, Brown something like it. ' This is too much like 
the 'three black crows. ' This was such a distortion of what I had written 
that I became confirmed in the thought that Judge Clark did not intend 
to be generous and fair toward me. He tried to put me in the light of 
intruding myself into a private conversation about the affairs of Trinit5^ 
This I denied in my fourth and last letter, and being a servant of the 
Trustees, whose duties bound them to protect me against unfair dealings 
as well as to protect the college against a 'trickster,' fair dealings 
demanded that I should tell the Judge that I would refer the matter to 
the Board, and I did so tell him in my last letter to him. This seemed 
to enrage him, and he sent me a type-written letter, copies of which he 
also sent to other members of the Board. In this last letter he charges 
me with what he said in his first letter, that he had not said, and added 
new charges. I have been unable to get these contradictions adjusted 
in my mind, however ; other people may have no trouble with them. 
He knew I would bring the matter before the Board, as I had stated, for 
this was the statement that seemed to inspire his last letter. I knew as 
well as he knew, that he was not to be tried by the Board, nor did it 
ever occur to me that he was tried, till I read his interview. I consid- 
ered myself on trial before the Board for a charge which he had made. 

"I regret that he was not present at the last meeting of the Board, nor 
can I understand why he did not attend, as I had announced to him that 
I would lay the whole matter before the Board at my earliest oppor- 
tunity. In his interview and his letter to Mr. Southgate, he says that he 
has sufficient evidence to prove his charges, and he also intimates that I 
received a gratuity for the speech I made on Mr. W. Duke's porch the 
night of a serenade inspired by Mr. Duke's gift of $100,000, and charges 
that I am a low order of a politician. Yet he did not put in his appear- 
ance nor submit in any form this evidence. He was under obligations 
to 135,000 Methodists to save them from the calamity of a 'scrub 
politician ;' he was under obligations to Trinity College to protect it ; he 
was under obligations to himself to protect his assertions ; he was under 



[ 21 ] 

obligations to every young man in Trinity to save them; he was under 
obligations to society and the State, yet none of these brought him to 
the meeting, but he said in his interview : 'I heard nothing more about 
it, and had well nigh forgotten the whole matter.' How dare any man 
forget such sacred duties? I did not forget it, and h?.d I not put it before 
the Board I would now be open to the charge of having learned of these 
accusations and did not even attempt to have them cleared up. I think 
135,000 Methodists have been badly ignored by one in whose hands they 
placed their institution. The Board of Trustees owes it to me and the 
college to call an extra session and investigate these new cJiarges. 

How long were you in Tennessee? Dr. Kilgo was asked. 

"Oh, pshaw! I never lived in any States except South and North 
Carolina. I do not kuow that I ever had a kinsman even that lived in 
Tennessee. I challenge Judge Clark to give the name of the Tennessee 
preacher who said, "we know that fellow. He is a scrub politician,'' 

"How long has Judge Clark been on the Board of Truetees? 

' 'He was elected May, 1892. This was at the time of the reorganization 
of the college. He was re-elected in 1895. 

' 'How much has the American Tobacco Company, donated to the 
college? or any trust?" 

"Nothing so far as my knowledge goes. Certainly nothing since I 
have been connected with the college. The chief benefactors of the 
college since I have been connected with it are, Mr. W. Duke, Mr. B. N. 
Duke, Mr. J. A. Cuninggim, Rev. N. M. Jurney, Mr. W. R. Odell, Miss 
Anne Roney and a number who have donated smaller sums. While on 
this subject I wish to say that I do not quite understand the attitude of 
Judge Clark on the gifts of Mr. Duke. Two years ago Mr. W. Duke 
donated $100,000 to the endowment and the Trustees meeting, June 27, 
1897, the following resolution was adopted by the rising vote, Judge' 
Clark being present : 

"Resolved, That as a Board of Trustees we express to Mr. W. Duke 
our high appreciation of his practical interest in the cause of education, 
and in Trinity College espe.cially. We tender him our heartfelt thanks 
for his large benefaction, and invoke the benediction of the Giver of all 
mercies upon him. (Signed,) F. D. Swindell, 

J. Gr. Brown, 

J. H. SOUTHGATE. 

"That, it seems to me, would have been the proper time to enter a 
protest but the Judge did not make this protest. If therefore the college 
is iinperiled by these donations let Judge Clark blame himself as a Trus- 
tee as the Trustees accept all gifts and not the President. 

' 'The Judge never opposed in a meeting of Trustees any gift made to 
the College, so far as I have any knowledge. I do not understand why 
he attempted to make before the public so much out of these benefac- 
tions, and yet assists the Board to fasten these calamities on the college. 

"I notice that Judge Clark in his letter to Mr. Southgate quotes you 
as using very strong language about Mr. W. Duke in your speech on the 
night of the great serenade. He charges you with saying in effect: 
'My Lord Duke, Give Us Money and Your Name shall be exalted above 
all Names,' "'- the reporter said. 

Dr. Kilgo made this reply : ' 'Of course I did not use such language 
nor did T ever have such thoughts. It was not in the progi-amme for me 
to speak, but the students called me out and I said among other things, 
'North Carolina is the first in very many things. American independ- 
ence was born in North Carolina, the first Confederate soldier was from 
North Carolina, the first man killed in the present war was from North 
Carolina, and North Carolina justly claims the greatest Southern phi- 
lanthropist. ' So far as I know Mr. Duke has made the largest gifts of 



[ 22 ] 

any Southern men. I wish to say to yon that Mr. W. Duke has always 
impressed me as a quiet and pure man, always thinking kindly of his 
fellow man, and faithful to his church. He is always interested in 
whatever his church enterprises." 

'•Do you teach the 'goldbug' standard at Trinity? was next asked Dr. 
Kilgo. ' 'No, we teach no political doctrine here. Personally, I have 
no connection with any subject that involves economic questions. 

"I am very busy these days as I have an immense amount of building 
and other improvements on my hands. Trinity is planning for a for- 
ward movement among all educational lines, and every member of the 
College is full of enthusiasm. I wish I had time to show all the work 
we have proj ected. ' ' 



[ 23 ] 



OfRcial Stenographic Proceedings of the Meeting of 

the Board of Trustees of Trinity College^ 

July i8, 1898. 



Mr. Jas. H. S«uthgate called the Board to order and the session was 
opened with prayer by Mr. Hurley, after which the Secretary called the 
roll. 

J. H. Southgate, A. P. Tyer, B. N- Duke, Walter ^lark, F. A. Bishop, 
Jos. G. Brown, G. A. Oglesby, V. Ballard, E. J. Parrish, W. H. Branson, 
W. R. Odell, J. R. Brooks, W. J. Montgomery, S. B. Turrentine, W. S.. 
Creasy, O. W. Carr, R. A. Mayer, N. M. Jurney, T. N. Ivey, J. B. Hurley, 
W. C. Wilson, Dred Peacock, and J. N. Cole. 

Dr. John C. Kilgo, President of the College, was also present. 

Mr. Southgate then read a telegram from Col. G. W. Flowers, explain- 
ing his inability to be present; also one from Rev. Mr. Norman. 

The minutes of the last regular meeting were dispensed with by motion 
to that eiFect. 

The following call for this special meeting was read by the Secretary : 

Durham, N. C, July 7, 1898. 
At a called meeting of the Executive Committee, the following motion 
was unanimously adopted: 

"That the President of the Board of Trustees be requested to call a 
meeting of the Trustees of Trinity College, at such time as he may deem 
best, to consider and determine all matters pertaining to charges made by 
Justice Walter Clark against Dr. John C. Kilgo." 

The President appointed Monday, July 18, 1898, 5 o'clock p. m. as the 
time of meeting, and the Secretary was instructed by him to notify the 
Trustees of the same. V. Bali^ard, Secretary. 

My Dear Sir and Brother: — Pursuant to the above, I hereby call 
and earnestly request you to be present. The matter to be decided is one 
of great importance to the college and a full attendance is desired. 
The meeting will be held at the Duke Building, Trinity Park. 

V. Bai,i.ard, 
Secretary Board Trustees Trinity College. 

Mr. Southgate, in a word of explanation, said: 

"This institution is not wrapped' up in the life of any one of us, but in 
all of us combined. We meet not to gain anything nor to lose anything; 
we meet not for what might be considered the ordinary selfish view of 
things. The life of the institution is too sacred for any view of that sort. 
The meeting is called in sincerity, and for the purpose of honestly dis- 
charging our duty as Trustees of the College and of the Church. We are 
not, as an institution, compelled to succeed in anything; we are compelled 
to do right. We are not compelled, a single one of us, as President or as 



[ 24 ] 

member of the Faculty, to be popular, but we are compelled to be true 
and right and noble and generous and just, so that in the life of the insti- 
tution which is to be here when all of us are gone, it is very essential and 
important that he who leads in the duties may see that we were truly 
guarded custodians, and that we honestly seek to do what is right, just, 
true, pure, good, and that we propose to be clear in our purposes in these 
things before all men and before one another. We want in the institu- 
tion's life, government and management, to do justice, and to love mercy, 
and to walk humbly before God, and to be fair and right at all times. 

So it is in the range of this spirit that we meet this evening, and I 
should think it is now in order to proceed to the business for which we 
.are called together. I would infer, according to the method of trial of the 
Church, that the easiest and best method for reaching this business, would 
be to appoint a committee of investigation which shall hold its sessions 
in the open Board as here assembled, and have, upon the part of the 
Board, some one appointed to prosecute these charges, to bring them to 
your attention fully and completely, that there may be nothing hid, 
nothing covered, but that all the light that it is possible for us to get. may 
be brought out. So that if it is in order I would appoint the committee, 
consisting of Mr. Odell, and Mr. Bishop, and Mr. Cole, to conduct the 
investigation." 

Mr. Wilson asked if it was right for that to be put in the form of a 
motion. 

Dr. K11.G0: I would like to knov/ under what law you appoint that 
committee. 

Mr. SouTHGATE: Page 115 of the Discipline. I know of no better and 
no wiser and more lawful way than what is laid down there. 

Dr. KiivGo: I recognize that I have no province for objections to any 
member of the committee. I regret, however, that you have appointed 
Rev. Mr. Cole on that committee, because before the investigation is over 
I will be forced to call upon him for some evidence, and it would prob- 
ably put it in on awkward position to have a witness and a juror in one 
person. 

Mr. Cole: Mr. Chairman, I think it is proper for me, under the circum- 
stances, to ask you to excuse me and put on some other brother. 

Mr. OgIvESBy: I don't see just the drift of your plan. What will be the 
duty of that committee? Can the body adopt or reject the report of the 
committee ? 

Mr. SouTHGATE: I think you will read in that section the province of 
that committee, pro and con. 

Mr. OgIvKSBy: Yes, I know what an investigation committee does, and 
what is understood by it. Suppose you have the investigation and then 
appoint a committee. I hesitate always in differing from your judgment, 
but it seems to me that it would be wiser to investigate by a committee of 
the whole. If there should be a trial necessary, then we have to go over 
all this trial and have it again. It seems to me that we could go over and 
make up our verdict and then the committee could be used. Still the 
Board of Trustees have finallj^ to say what the verdict shall be. We have 
to make up a verdict from hearing the testimony of the Trustees. 

Mr. SouTHGATE: While at the same time I believe that the mode of 
procedure in some instances should be like that set forth in the discipline, 
and we might hold a preliminary investigation, where a committee ap- 
pointed for the purpose, should make the investigation right here before 
us, and if their verdict be such as to call for a trial for suspension or ex- 
pulsion, then we may go into that phase; but I may be mistaken. 



[ 25 ] 

Mr. Brooks: What if the committee should report that this committee 
is not necessary? It seems to me that we could consider this matter by 
the committee as a whole. 

Mr. Cole : I think there was one point overlooked, and that is the ac- 
tion that takes place under a Presiding Elder. This is a matter not in 
the ministerial relation, but as President of the institution that has called 
us together, and the action under the discipline would take place under 
the Presiding Elder. 

Dr. KiLGo: The defense makes this point, that the accusations are of 
such a nature that, if established, must necessarily bring a vei diet against 
him that involves all his ministerial character, and not only his relation 
to this Board and institution, but his relations to the Conference and the 
church. Now the defense is perfectly willing to be generous in all this 
matter, raise no point and make no special claims, so long as it is even 
in the neighborhood of the train of law in our discipline, by which men's 
character shall be handled, and beyond that I have no claim to make. It 
is a matter immaterial with me whether you do it as a whole or a com- 
mittee of investigation; but as repsesenting myself I am opposed to the 
fundamental idea, as set forth by Bro. Cole. It all comes to the same 
thing, and involves the ministerial character of the President of the Col- 
lege. 

Mr. Parrish: Let me make a suggestion. Sometimes matters are 
much more easily settled and adjusted than we think, and sometimes I 
say something that is misconstrued. It may be'so in this case. If satis- 
factory statements could be made satisfying some of the parties that it is 
error in the intent, it seems to me that we should try and adjust these 
matters in a satisfactory way. Exhaust ourselves on those lines before 
we move out on other lines. To be plain, there was a charge of the in- 
tention of Dr. Kilgo to include himself in the Faculty, when it was pro- 
posed that they should be elected for a term of four years. Judge Clark 
says that he heard no mention of Dr. Kilgo's excepting himself Might 
not the matter be easily put to right. I take it that these gentlemen seek 
to do the right, and if that explanation should be made satisfactory to 
me I would be ready to make amends, and I do not see why such could 
not be brought about here. 

Mr. Tyer: We cannot take up the character of Dr Kilgo here as a 
minister of the North Carolina Conference, but we can take up any accu- 
sations made against him, involving the college, as we are its custodians 
and he our servant. But I do not believe we can take up claims under 
the regulations of the discipline. I ma}* be wrong. Let Judge Clark 
make good his assertions and Dr. Kilgo present his defense. If he es- 
tablishes his charges we know exactly w^hat to do with Dr. Kilgo. 

Dr. Brooks: I move that we proceed as a committee of the whole. 

Dr. Kilgo: Does the defense understand that if you go into the com- 
mittee of the whole that it will have a right to call upon members of this 
Board for testimony? This is very vital to him. 

"Yes, certainly," (the Board replied in concert.) 

Mr. OglESBy: My main reason for making this suggestion was that 
first of all the Board of Trustees has finally to say whether these charges 
are true or untrue. We cannot say, then, second-handed. We have got 
to get this testimony before we can settle matters. And then I had an 
idea that if we had a committee simply to determine, that some brother 
might make the complaint that some brother did not get before the 



[ 26 ] 

Board; and I should like to hear everything on both sides myself, if Dr. 
Kilgo does not object. 

Dr. Kii,Go: This is a matter of indifFence to me. 

The motion as previously made prevailed 

The committee was appointed as a whole. 

Mr. Creasy: I would like to ask Mr. Parrish one question, whether 
there had been any suggestions made looking to a compromise? 

At the request of the Chairman, the Secretary read the letter, first, 
addressed to Rev. L. W. Crawford addressed to Mr. Southgate. 

The following are the letters: 

Durham, N. C, July ir, 1898. 
Rev. Dr. L. W. Crawford, Greensboro, N. C.: 

Dear Sir and Brother: — In your editorial column, issue of Wednes- 
day 6th instant, N. C. Advocate, under the heading "Silence Seems a 
Duty" reference is made to what has been styled the Clark Kilgo Contro- 
versy. Please review the following sentence which appears in this 
editorial item: "We are satisfied that there are many material facts that 
have not yet been made public that will throw much light upon the 
matter" and if you are aware of any facts or* have any advice which will 
go to establish charges Judge Clark has made against Dr. Kilgo, it is 
earnestly desired that you should appear at the meeting of the Board of 
Trustees Trinity College, Monday afternoon, the i8th instant, five o'clock 
in the "Duke" Building and testify in the investigation proceedings 
which will then be in progress. The Board is clear in its purpose to 
employ no man in any capacity whose character is not worthy the fullest 
confidence a^nd will appreciate your presence and evidence in revealing 
the material facts which we are led to infer you have which will give 
light to them on this matter. Yours, 

(Signed,) J. H. Southgate, 
President Board Trustees, Trinity College. 



Greensboro, N. C, July 13, 1898. 
Hon. James H. Southgate : 

My DeXr Sir and Brother —You letter of the nth instant has been 
received and contents noted. The paragraph in the last issue of the 
Advocate to which you call my attention has no reference to any facts in 
my possession, but to statements I have heard made in the last two weeks. 
I learn that the Trustees are in possession of information that has not 
been made public, also that Judge Clark has facts to prove his assertions 
that are not in possession of the Trustees. 

I have seen no statement from Mr. Brown, in regard to the alleged 
conversation with Judge Clark and before I wrote the parau;raph referred 
to had been told that the Trustees would have a called meeting for further 
investigation and deliberation. 

Under these circumstances, I felt that before I or others could do jus- 
tice to all concerned additional-information was necessary 

Personally, I very much regret the whole matter, and sincerely hope 
you can devise some plan to adjust it. 

There is a division of sentiment and much feeling in regard to it and 
unless great prudence and wisdom are exercised, I think, there is trouble 
ahead. I have been under a hot cross fire for two years and would like 
to have rest for a while. 

Wishing your divine guidance in your delicate and difficult work. 

I am, fraternally, L. VV. Crawford. 



[ 27 ] 

Dr. Kii^Go: Do I understand that you put that in the testimony ? 

Mr. Southgate: Well, sir, I gave it to show what had taken, place in 
the interlude. I wrote one letter to Kilgo, one to Clark and one to 
Crawford. You and Judge Clark are here to answer your letters in per- 
son, and that is the letter in answer to Bro. Crawford's. 

Dr. K11.GO: Sir, when I was cited to appear before this Board I under- 
stood that these charges were by Judge Clark. There was included no 
charge made by Mr. Crawford. Now I understand that you are going to 
investigate charges that were made in the Advocate, and that this is your 
evidence. I want to be satisfied on that point. 

Mr. Southgate: Well, sir, I will read the report of the Board. 

The extract was read, beginning, ''We are satisfied that there are more 
material facts that have not been made public, etc." 

Dr. KiivGo: Then I understand, Mr. President, you simply cited him as 
a witness. 

Mr. Southgate: Yes, sir. 

Mr? Oglesby: Bearing upon this controversy ? 

Mr. Southgate: Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ballard read letter from Mr. Southgate, President of Board of 
Trustees. 

Mr. Southgate: Gentlemen, you will indicate your method of pro- 
cedure now please. I will entertain your motion. 

Dr. Ivey: I would like to know also if there was not a letter also sent 
to Dr. Kilgo? 

Mr. Southgate: Yes, I will state the substance. It was a direct call 
to him and was worded almost like the one addressed to Judge Clark, 
except that I changed the verbiage. The only difference was the verbal 
change in two letters. 

Mr. Bishop: It seems to me that the proceedings would be forjudge 
Clark to substantiate these charges separately and bring his evidence to 
sustain it. It seems to me that this would be be the better plan to get 
through with it. 

Mr. Ivey: I move, sir, that that letter be filed as part of the proceed- 
ings. 

The motion was carried. 

The following is the letter referred to: 

Durham, N. C, July 9, 1898. 

Dr. Jno. C. Kilgo, Trinity Park, Durham, N. C: 

Dear Sir: — The Board of Trustees of Trinity College will meet the i8th 
inst., in the Benefactor's Parlor of the Duke Building, at 5 o'clock p. m., 
for the purpose of investigating accusations against the President of the 
College, through the public prints, by Judge Walter Clark, of Raleigh, 
N. C. Among other accusations, your attention is called to Judge Clark's 
statements that you wished to evade the evidence he had against vou; 
the speech which he quotes you as making on Mr. Duke's porch, and 
other references to this speech; your reputation in South Carolina; your 
residency and reputation in Tennessee, and your record in North Carolina. 



[ 28 J 

It is earnestly desired that you present to the Board, at the mentioned 
time and place, in person or in writing, all the evidence you have in 
contradiction of these accusations. Very truly yours, 

J. H. SOUTHGATE, 
President Board Trustees, Trinity College. 

Mr. Bishop made a motion that Judge Clark take up each charge sep- 
arately. 

The motion was carried. 

Judge Ci^ark: Mr. Chairman, I received the letter which had been 
read (after having read the letter which gave him notice of the meeting). 
In obedience to that request, and in deference to the wishes of the Board, 
I am present. The first time that this unpleasant controversy occurred 
was in a communication which, in some way, went from this chamber to 
the Charlotte Observer. The last was from Kilgo. 

In reference to the harmony of the church I did not answer it. I sac- 
rificed my own feelings in order that the controversy might end. Then 
there came this proceeding, which was the only possible means by which 
the controversy could be revived. In saying that I do not reflect upon 
your motive. I wish merely to emphasize the fact that the re-opening of 
the controversy did not come from me. In the statements which I-have 
made in regard to Dr. Kilgo, I made no statement which I did not im- 
plicitly believe was the truth, and which I cannot nov/ substantiate. And 
you all know that a very large part of what I stated could not have been 
observed by me. I will not stand here in the presence of gentlemen and 
detail private conversations and read private letters, but if you wish you 
shall have the fullest knowledge I can give. All I ask is that I may be 
given some time that I may put this in good form and give it to you. If 
it fails to substantiate what I have stated, I am man enough to abide the 
result. But on the contrary, if I prove each statement I know you gen- 
tlemen will be men enough to say so. You have already once voted in 
favor of Dr. Kilgo and against me, and I know what the result would be 
in this case 

I have confidence in your Christian character, in your integrit}^ ; I have 
confidence in your fairness in weighing testimony, and what I say now 
gives me a reasonable time to lay before you these names and statements 
over creditable signatures, and when I lay them on the table, if they don't 
prove the case, then it is for you to say whether they prove it or not. 

These gentlemen on whom I have to rely for evidence are scattered 
through three States. To lay a part of it before you would be unjust to 
you, to me and to Dr. Kilgo. I ought to be able to place the whole case 
before you, then, gentlemen, you can pass upon it. 

The following is the letter to Judge Clark referred to by him: 

Durham, N. C, July 7, 1898. 
Judge Walter Clark, Raleigh, N. C: 

Dear Sir: — In your recent letters to me, given to the public through 
the press, there were accusations against the President of Trinity College 
which require investigation by the Board of Trustees. As Dr. Kilgo is 
an employee of the Board this investigation, which will be confined to 
him, is not only in order but necessary for the protection of the Trustees 
n their purpose to emplo)^ no man in any capacity whose character is 
not worthy the fullest confidence. 

Among others your attention is called to your statements that Dr. Kilgo 
wished to evade the evidence you had against him; the speech which you 
quote him as making on Mr. Duke's porch and other references to this 
speech, his reputation in South Carolina; his residency and reputation in 
Tennessee and his record in North Carolina. 



[ 29 ] 



The Board will meet Monday, the i8th inst., in the Benefactor's parlor 
of the Duke Building, at 5 o'clock p. m. 

It is earnestly desired that you present to the Board at the mentioned 
time and place in person or in writing all the evidence you have which 
will go to to establish these accusations. 
Very truly yours, 

(Signed) J. H. Southgate, 
President Board of Trustees, Trinity College. 

Dr. KiLGO: Mr. President, I have been arraigned before this Board and 
cited before you, and I appear. In so far as I am concerned, I am ready 
for trial; I have gone to a considerable amount of personal expense in 
bringing men here who could give you the facts of my past record. This 
is the first time I have heard of this matter. After the prosecution had 
all opportunities to arrange for its court, had put the accused to the 
trouble of preparing further court — and he always at the disadvantage — 
at this hour to ask a postponement of it seems strange. And if I read 
Judge Clark's letters correctly, as he published them, it was not testimony 
which he should hunt up. but which he already had; so that it is not now 
a question of what can be gotten in Tennessee in 20 or 100 days. What 
has been said to the public is already in his hands, and, so far as I am 
concerned, sir, I ask that the trial go on, and I understand by j^our plac- 
ing Judge Clark forward that he is now on the stand and now giving his 
testimony in the matter. 

Mr. Jurney: I wish to set Judge Clark right as to how this information 
got out. It was a mere incident. I would be the last man connected 
with Trinity College or my church, that would ever do anything to hurt 
the church, and if I ever get to heaven I expect to have the biggest lime 
of anybody there, because I expect to have the hardest time to get there. 
I was on the train with Wilson, was glad to see him, etc. He said to me, 
"I understand that the Trustees of Trinity College have asked Judge 
Clark to fesign. Hqw is that? Is it true?" He said, "Why don't you 
publish it?" I said, 'Tt is not the province of Trinity College to go into 
the papers and discuss things,' and I gave him in substance the facts 
without any further discussions. ''Well,'' he said, "I am going to give 
'it to the papers;" and I said, "Major, don't 3^ou connect Trinity College 
with it because I have no desire to harm Trinity College." Now, that is 
the way they got it in the Charlotte Observer. The Major seemed to have 
a wrong impression about it, and I gave him the facts, and I cautioned 
him, "Now, don't you make Trinity College or anybody connected with 
it responsible." 

Mr. Southgate: Gentlemen, you have the matter before you. 

Dr. Kii,GO: If you wish to arraign me, I wish to deny, in toto, the 
accusations 

Judge CIvARk: I am not the prosecutor here. This Board has instituted 
the proceedings and I have come before you and said if you want the 
information you shall have it. 

Mr. Southgate: I think your point is well taken. Judge Clark is not 
the prosecutor here. He is simply a witness. You have called Judge 
Clark upon the stand to testify. 

Mr. Bishop: You, as Chairman of the Board, notified Dr. Kilgo that 
there were charges brought against him. Now you represent the Board, 
prosecuting the case, and Judge Clark is witness. 

The motion was that Judge Clark take the floor and bring these charges 
out separately. 



[ 30 ] 

Judge CivARK: I stated that I could not give this evidence now, and if 
you wanted it you would have to wait. 

The question was asked Judge Clark: "Did you not have sufficient 
evidence in your hands in writing these things to Dr. Kilgo?" 

Judge Ci,ark: Not evidence that would satisfy the Board, but that 
satisfied myself I said that those men who wrote to me are gentlemen, 
and they will furnish this evidence if you will give me time. 

Mr. Jurney: In these various charges, ought there not to be some that 
he can deal with now ? 

Judge CI.ARK: None that'I know of, sir. 

Mr. Jurney: We are crossing the stream with this college. We have 
been in the storm ever since I was a boy. 

Mr. Ogt.ESBy: Mr. Chairman, if I understand this question, this is a 
Court of Inquiry. We are investigating certain charges which have been 
made We are doing that in the interest of our college, for which we are 
responsible. All the parties to this whole question have been duly noti- 
fied to appear here at this time, and give all information they have. I am 
clear that it is not our business to wait. It is not justice to our college or 
to anybody else. If a man has made statements which he cannot verify, 
it is not our fault. With all deference to everybody connected, I think 
we have nothing to do but to proceed. 

Judge CIvARK: I have made no rash statements, sir; if Dr. Kilgo wants 
me absolved without that evidence, you may proceed as you choose. I 
said I have not got the evidence, but I can get it 

Mr. Bishop: It seems to me that you ought to have had evidence that 
you could use, before you put those statements before the public. And 
now if we are to allow you further time to get your testimonj-, then I 
think you should provide Dr. Kilgo with copies of the letters received. 

Dr. Kilgo: Mr. President, at this point I would like to have Dr. John 
O. Wilson recognized as assistant counsel for the defense. 

Mr. Bishop: I would like to ask Judge Clark how long before he would 
be ready. 

Judge Clark: At this time of the year it would be hard to say, but I 
should say thirty days. The usual time in court is three months. 

Dr. Kilgo: I would like to ask Judge Clark who are the witnesses by 
whom he expects to establish this. 

Judge Clark: I will give them when the proper time comes. 

Mr. Creasy: I think it was very unfortunate that our esteemed brother 
should have made so many charges, which have set^ everybody on their 
heads, and yet has not the testimony to establish his statements before 
this Board. If it was not sufficient to bring it before this Board it was 
certainly cruel to put it broadcast. I am perfectly willing to give him 
the time, but I think it is unfair, now in the vacation with this thing still 
abroad. If John C. Kilgo is such a man as these statements put it, then 
we ought to know it and put him out and get another. I believe that is 
just and fair. 

Mr. Tyer: In view of these statements here, it seems to me very strange 
that the Judge should want further time or evidence. There is Dr. Kilgo's 
letter saying that he would bring the matter before the Trustees. (Reads 
letter.) Now we clearly infer that the Judge had the evidence. I main- 
tain that if he had the evidence to arraign those great charges against Dr. 



[ 31 ] 

Kilgo, he has evidence enough to establish them here this evening. And 
I am sure that the difficulty is that which belongs to that class of men 
who seek to accomplish their ends. If it was evidence to make Judge 
Clark sign his name in a public letter, then we ought to have the evidence 
here, which is more private than when stated in the papers; and what we 
want to know are the facts in the case which the Judge had when he 
wrote. If he can starve this whole country and kill Kilgo, why I am 
perfectly willing that he should do it. If he had evidence enough to 
write on those matters and give to the world, then he ought to give it here. 

Mr. Peacock: I would like to know whether Judge Clark, in the nine 
days he has had', did not have time to get the evidence of which he speaks. 

Judge Clark: I could have produced the other; these matters which 
are now being investigated are entirely new matters. That letter was in 
regard to matters when you all tried and condemned me. I say if you 
don't want the evidence, all right; but if you want the evidence, then 
give me time. I will give you legal evidence, affidavits of parties stating 
facts. If you want it, all right; if not, all right Gentlemen. I am 
powerless in your hands; if you want this matter investigated, it will be 
done if you give me time to proceed. But if it is your purpose to shut it 
off, you have the matter in your hands. 

Mr. Oglesby: I confess to 3'ou that a statement like that is very unfair 
and unkind, that it is "our purpose to shut it off. ' Our purpose in 
proposing to go on is not to shut off the evidence that would go to sub- 
stantiate the statements which he has made; so that if you have any- 
evidence in the original charge which he made, then we are ready for 
that. I do not wish to take advantage of anybody. I have been accused 
by people who know me ver}^ well, of being abrupt and plain and earnest, 
but I have nev^er been charged by anybody that knows me, with being 
unkind or unfair, and I think that when the State makes a charge against 
a man it is supposed to be ready; when an individual makes a charge 
against a man he is supposed to be read}', else he should not have made 
it. We are right on the eaves of our next opening, to publish to the 
world that we are waiting on a man who has made charges against our 
President What does all that mean ? Just simply to say to the public: 
"You had better wait and see whether you can afford to send to Trinit}'^ 
College. Upon the presumption that the State is supposed to be ready. I 
think we should go on and have this testimony. It is perfectly proper 
for the Judge to bring evidence at any time. 

Mr. Bishop: I would like to ask if Judge Clark could not be ready for 
this in ten days. We have a great many telegraph lines and mails, and 
certainly he could get his testimony together in this time. 

Judge Clark: I think I have stated my own time. I have no desire 
to postpone the matter beyond what is necessary; but I don't want to 
come here again. I will have no excuse to say I want more time. 

Mr. Jurney: I have no fears that Trinity College will be hurt at all by 
giving more time. There are some people who are praying for you, and 
there are some hoping that this will kill Kilgo. But I have faith in this 
Methodist college, and I believe that it will live till time is no more. I 
have been out a great deal, and never have been embarrassed. I never 
have offended anybody, and I have always entertained for you the very 
kindest feelings. Judge. I tell you. the boys coming here have nothing 
to fear b}^ postponing this matter; but the enemies will go and hound it 
all o'er the State and say, "You would not give Judge Clark time." I 
would be unwilling to take snap judgments, and want to do fair and just 
in all things. I told them that I was going to fight for Kilgo till the}' 



[ 32 ] 

knocked every Jtooth out. Everybody knew that I fought, bled and died 
for Craven, When I can't be loyal to my church, then I want to get out 
of it 

Dr. KiLGo: I make this point, that the College put the names of these 
witnesses through which Judge Clark hopes to establish his charges. We 
are to decide the very point at issue now Now certainly there can be 
nothing in withholding the names of the parties through whom he hopes 
to establish his accusations. It may turn out that some of those parties 
are in Durham, in Raleigh, in Greensboro. Certainly there can be but 
one in Tennessee, for only one seems to have made a statement upon 
which one charge was based. Certainly there can be but a number of 
witnesses in South Carolina; but the witnesses concerning the speech I 
made on Mr. Duke's porch, and the gratuities I received from Mr. Duke; 
the witnesses to establish my political career in North Carolina, are cer- 
tainly here in North Carolina, and so on through ; and that I evaded, or 
had no intention whatever in allowing him to present his testimony, the 
witnesses are right here in this room who saw the other investigation; so 
I don't see how in the world, upon what grounds of fairness and open 
generosity, that he should withhold the names. Now certainly if I had 
violated private conversations in telling it to the public, I should take the 
gnat if I had swallowed the saw-mill, and would certainly let the names 
be known. I came before the Board as an honest, plain, Methodist 
preacher, in the hands of his brethren, to meet accusations which, if true, 
unfit me for a place among them, and so long as they stand as they are, 
leave grounds for an impediment in my work. I came in answer to the 
call of this Board, and in justice ot me; but, mark you, the court owes as 
much to the prisoner at the bar as to the man who makes the arrest, and 
if there are families and reputations on the one side, there are those also 
on the other. For very nearly two years I have been under this fire. It 
is not a thing which started yesterday. I have private correspondence 
showing that it has been going on quite a while God forbid that I should 
ever lock in my desk that which, if given to the public, will save a man's 
character and family. God forbid that I should ever write a word on a 
sheet of paper that will damage a man's character, and be unwilling for 
that man to see it. Now, sir, there is this other side to it. I have been 
a very busy man ever since commencement, but I have corresponded 
with men in Tennessee, and have letters that had to go to the home of 
parties and then be remailed. I have had time enough for that; time 
enough to write to Dr. Wilson and write a second time and get him here 
this morning; to see Dr. Creitzberg and get him here; Mr. Bass, and get 
him here. If it is a matter of time, I can pull the South Carolina Con- 
ference here for you. 

If any man goes into a paper and makes a positive statement, and says 
this man does not belong to the laity, but is a minister, and knows the 
party so clearly, and is so positive that the party's statement is true as to 
give to the public that which will defame a man, and then come here and 
say "I won't tell you the name of that party; I won't even give you his 
name," I shall ask your Board, as a matter of economy to myself and my 
friends, if you don't care to take testimony on your side, to please take 
the" testimony I have, and then I ask the privilege that at your future 
meetings, if I am to be dragged around, I ask you when I come, take 
what I have and give me the chance, if more is necessary, to get the 
more. This is a queer procedure. 

Dr. Brooks • I think it is very clear that Dr. Kilgo has a right to pur- 
sue the course if he wishes. 

Mr. Jurney: I move that thirty days be'given Judge Clark to produce 
his testimony, and that the Board take the'testimony of Dr. Kilgo. 



[ 33 ] 



Dr. KiLGO: I still call for the names, sir; if I am not entitled to them 
I want the Board to rule that way. 

Mr. SouthgatE: Is it the pleasure of the Board of Trustees to ask Judge 
Clark to furnish the names of the witnesses that he proposes to bring in ? 

Mr. Parrish: I want to separate the motion. 

Idr. Bishop: I move to amend that motion to have the next meeting 
of. the Board of Trustees to the 15th day of August, and by that time that 
]w^?;e Clark furnish to Dr. Kilgo all the evidence he wishes to offer. 

Mr. OgIvESBY: I move as a substitute that we proceed to have this in- 
vestigation here and now. 

Mr. Bishop : I dislike very much to differ from him in any of his mo- 
tions, but it seems to me that we had better stop and get at the bottom of 
the facts that Judge Clark could have before us at that time; and for that 
reason I offered that amendment. 

Judge CIvARk: I don't think I could give it in that time. 

Mr. Bishop: We are not running on the order of civil courts. You see 
the College will have to open soon ; we want to get clear of this in that 
time. 

Judge C1.ARK: I come here and say if you will give me certain time I 
will give you th? evidence. That is all I can do. Now if you want the 
evidence you will simply have to wait. 

Dr. W11.SON: Does that not intimate that Judge Clark has made state- 
ments which he cannot prove ? I recollect that he said that if he had 
been present at the other meeting he could have defended himself, and 
now he is not able to prove any of them, but it comes up a new matter. 

Dr. Brooks: It appears to me that we could proceed to the investiga- 
tion by examining the witnesses who are present. I know Dr. Wilson. 
He is a busy man, and it is no small sacrifice and no little expense that 
he is here to-day, and I think that we could proceed with the investiga- 
tion. I think it is due Dr. Kilgo and these gentlemen. 

Mr. Odei.1.: I don't know, but if I were Dr. Kilgo I should not present 
my evidence unless the other side presented theirs. 

Dr. Wii^son: If yoa will permit me to interrupt you, I will say that I 
will come back. If it is in the interest ©f my church I will certainly 
come. Try not to put your meeting on Monday, for very frequently I 
am off on that day. Let me go just a step further. I do not know what 
is the practice in North Carolina, but some years ago I had some little 
•knowledge of the practice of law in South Carolina, and whenever a party 
wanted continuance it was expected that the material witnesses who were 
absent, that their names should be given. I have known this man here 
ever since he was a boy, but I think it is better for the testimony to come 
in its proper place. 

Mr. Jurney: I think I know what I am talking about when I say you 
would hurt the College and Methodism and everything that is good by 
going into this trial now. Judge Clark has asked for time, and I declare 
that you have nothing to fear by waiting. Now if you don't do that, 
those who are our enemies can talk and say a great many things that 
hurt. 

Mr. Bishop: I would like to say that if there is any postponement here 
I think we have a right to ask for the names of these witnesses that Judge 



[ 34 ] 

Clark proposes to introduce. We have a right to those names. Isn't that 
customary, Judge? 

Judge CIvARk: No, sir. 

Mr. Bishop: Haven't we a right to demand the names of the witnesses 
and when they are to be given ? 

Judge CI.ARK: The Judge has a right to refuse. It is entirely at the dis- 
cretion of the Judge. He can give the names, cost, etc. 

Mr. Bishop: I would like to know in this case who is the judge, and 
if he cannot demand these names. 

Judge CI.ARK: I can't give them now. I will just say that if you will 
give me time I will give you the evidence. I cannot do it otherwise. 

Mr. Bishop: Well, Judge, if the prisoner was before you and the names 
should be refused to be given, the Judge would not give a continuance. 

Judge CI.ARK: If these gentlemen here suspect that I am not in good 
faith, and if this Board suspects that I am not in good faith . . . 

Mr. Bishop: I was just bringing up this suppositious case in order to 
get at what I wanted. But it is just to the other side. 

Judge Clark: The Judge never requires that except when he suspects 
the good faith. 

Mr. Parrish: Now it seems to me that we should extend the time, but 
it does seem to me that Judge Clark should furnish Dr. Kilgo a copy of 
his testimony. I second Bro. Jurney's motion to give Judge Clark 30 days 
time, though I must say that I believe that Judge Clark is forced of neces- 
sity to have that time. I would like for the Judge to at least agree to 
furnish Dr. Kilgo at least ten days before the meeting of the Board of 
Trustees, copies of his testimony, if we should extend the time, but I do 
want to settle so that the matter can finally be adjusted at the next meet- 
ing; but there might be trouble because of Dr. Kilgo's ignorance of what 
Judge Clark may present. However, I am ready to vote to extend the 
time and run the risk of having to adjourn the meeting. 

Mr. Jurney: I say right here that it is not hurting Trinity College to 
extend this time. Now I don't say that to hurt anybody. 

I am scouring around to get money for Trinity College. I don't know 
whether we have prayed on this thing. I have. In my prayerful judg- 
rnent, we have nothing to fear by postponing this matter. I may be 
wrong in my judgment. 

I want Judge Clark to have all the advantages and everything that is 
fair and honest and just. It's all right. I move that the Judge be given 
30 days and that he furnish Dr. Kilgo all the evidence which he proposes 
to bring. 

Judge CiyARK: The objection to that, Bro. Jurney, is that it gives me 
only ten days. 

Dr. KiiyGO: I am not a lawyer, but I know quite enough about some 
general principles of Church law, to know that the court has been pro- 
ceeding along anything than Methodist, legal lines, because we have 
allowed it to run free and easy — because I think that a better way to get 
all matters; but it is still a question with the court to decide whether those 
names are available or not; and I renew, sir, my call for the names of 
those parties, and if you give me the names I care nothing about your 
furnishing me the testimony. Then we will not need any ten days. I 
am satisfied in my own mind that some of those witnesses are in the State 



[ 35 ] 

of North Carolina, and I renew and appeal to the court to decide that 
matter. It is not with witnesses nor with jurors to decide this. 

Mr. Southgate: We have dispensed with the substitute motion. 

Mr. Ogi^KSBy: I made my motion for these reasons: First, that Judge 
Clark said he was not the prosecutor, and for the further reason that he 
has already . . . our Board. And so I think I am perfectly willing to 
put off the matter, but I do not see anything to be gained from it. But I 
do think that he should give us the names of his witnesses. All cases 
that come into court have the plaintiff and the defendant and the wit- 
nesses on both sides given, and I think if the time is to be extended the 
names should be given. 

Mr. Southgate: There is a motion that we give Judge Clark thirty 
days, and that fifteen days before the meeting he furnish Dr. Kilgo with 
all the evidence he secures. 

Mr. Parrish: I would like to amend that motion by extending the 
time to forty days, and that ten days before the trial, Dr. Kilgo be given 
the evidence. 

Mr. Jurney accepts the amendment. 

Mr. Southgate: We have now a motion that forty days be given Judge 
Clark, and that ten days previous to the meeting of the Board, he furnish 
Dr. Kilgo a copy of the evidence which he proposes to give. 

Dr. Creasy: I rise to offer an amendment, and that is that this time is 
granted that Judge Clark may procure the evidence; that his own state- 
ment is, tkat he has not the evidence now, and that we give him the time 
to get it. 

Mr. Tyer: What I want explained is this: He declines to be the prose- 
cutor. The President of the Board says he is not the prosecutor, but that 
he is simply a witness. Now tell me where he gets his prerogative to go 
around and get witnesses ? 

Dr. Kilgo: The defendant was just about to raise that point, and I 
wish it to go down as a part of this meeting, that this court has not yet 
appointed a prosecutor. You have summoned a witness who says from 
his personal knowledge he knows nothing. The court rules that this 
witness is in no sense the prosecutor in this case. The court then 
adjourns, giving the functions of prosecutor to this witness, who declines 
being prosecutor in any sense. Now do I understand that by this action 
the court appoints Judge Clark prosecutor? As a witness he knows 
nothing. The Board appoints him prosecutor. He denies and thl^ Board 
denies that he is in any such relation to the Board. Now I, simply as a 
matter of right, want the Board to determine his relations. Does he go 
out now as prosecutor, detective or witness.? 

Judge Clark : So far we have avoided any personal reflections. I hope 
the Doctor will withdraw the term "detective." 

Dr. KiivGo: Just as you like. Before you go further in your proceed- 
ings, I make this call, that you appoint some one to take depositions, and 
let the witnesses, such as I may think best to carry before that commis- 
sion, be examined. In case Dr. Wilson could not come back because of 
death or sickness, we would have his deposition taken by this court. 
That will be sealed and put in possession of this court, and will not be 
opened until you convene again. 

Mr. Oglesby: I move that the Chairman be instructed to appoint a 
committee to take all depositions, and that no . . . letters, or anything 
of that kind, be taken as evidence. 



[ 36 J 

Judge Ci^ark: That will simply cut me off. I can't go to the expense 
of employing lawyers. 

Mr. Bishop : The date we have fixed brings us to Sunday, and I think 
we had better fix it to the 30th day of August, (Mr Parrish moved to 
this day). 

Dr. KiLGO: Regarding these names, I still leave the responsibility 
on the court to mako the decision. I ask you if the motion made by 
Bro. Parrish met your demand, or shall it be brought up as a separate 
matter? I would rather have that question put before me when this 
other question is decided. Before any motion was made, I asked your 
Board to decide this question as to whether I had a rigiit to the names 
of those witnesses. The two witnesses that you have brought seem to 
know nothing; but they say that they can testify to the names of the 
parties who can furnish testimony. I want this court to decide whether 
it shall be put in possession of those names. I don't see how the court 
will ever get up that testimony otherwise. Suppose you appoint Mr. 
Oglesby prosecutor, and you send him out to get testimony, he has no 
names and knows not to whom to go. If for any cause your witness 
say, "Well, I don't care to pursue the matter any further," people will 
say ''It is true he did not present them, but he has them," and I will be 
left here in the same predicament, and I want the court to decide that 
question, whether I shall have the right to those names, or whether the 
court should have them. 

Mr. Bishop: Now it is with the court whether they be given, and I 
move that the decision of the Board be that the names be furnished. 

Mr. Oglesby : I move as an amendment that all testimony shall be in 
the form of deposition, and that all parties shall be duly notified of the 
time and place. 

Judge Clark : That will be absolutely impossible for me to do. 

Mr. Oglesby : I beg to say that you are not the prosecutor, and it is 
not your province to determine this question of the Board. 

Judge Clark: I will state that if that is done it just cuts off my testi- 
mony. I am lawyer enough not to have business enough to travel 
around three States and get up evidence. If you will give me thirty 
days I will get the evidence. I will furnish you affidavits taken by 
magistrates, but can't furnish you depositions. 

When you say that no testimony that I put in shall be evidence unless 
I take depositions, you simply cut me off. 

Mr. Oglesby: 'If you are not prosecutor why are you for putting in 
testimony? 

Mr. Tyer : Before we vote on this, I want to understand. By this 
motion we are to give Judge Clark time to secure evidence, and yet 
Judge Clark is but a witness. Dr. Kilgo is the defense; you have no 
prosecutor. The witness you call on declines. Now we cannot vote on 
this motion till we have a prosecutor and know whether the court is 
going to appoint Judge Clark prosecutor. This is a question of putting 
the matter of hunting up the evidence in the hands of one witness. This 
motion gives Judge Clark forty days and appoints him to get up the 
testimony. 

Mr. Jurney : I understand you have nothing else to hunt but that you 
have all the evidence. 

Judge Clark : Gentlemen, I have to return to-night, and I would like 
to decide this matter. 



[ 37 J 

Dr. KiLGO : I think if you will act on your resolution you will be ready 
then to adjourn, but I want to ask you to appoint some one to represent 
you in a committee to take depositions from gentlemen who are here, 
and I want that taken to-nignt before these gentlemen get away. Just 
one other point. You are losing sight, and I am satisfied you are not 
intending to do it — of what an awkward position you a^e putting the 
defense in, by not having a prosecutor, not having some party who is 
responsible for this. And the point which Bro. Tyer raised is a very 
necessary point, not only to you but to me, because I want the attitude 
of Judge Clark to this court settled. 

Mr. Cole : It seems to me that it would be proper that the motion 
should carry its history with it in the minutes, and should be made that 
Judge Clark had been before the Board and was not furnished with the 
evidence. 

Mr. Bishop: I move that Brother Oglesby be appointed prosecutor in 
this case. 

Mr. Tyer : You have decided to postpone, when there is only one side 
of the matter presented. I do wish, brethren, that you would recon- 
sider that. You are agreeing to discontinue a case here without the 
agreement of both sides. 

Mr. JuRNEY : Why can't we decide this matter right now? 

Mr. Tyer : You have put the whole matter of hunting evidence upon 
Judge Clark, who is not the prosecutor. There is a motion to reconsider 
the motion of giving forty days. 

It was moved and carried that this motion be laid on the table till a 
prosecutor had been appointed. 

Dr. Peacock : I move that a prosecutor be appointed; and that Judge 
Clark be appointed the prosecutor. 

Mr. Jurney : If there is any reason why you can't decide this matter 
now then why not give the reason? 

Dr. KiLGo : The defense has gone along in a very generous way. He 
will demand the right to examine every witness that the prosecutor pro- 
poses to bring here, and will object to any testimony that will not be 
brought here in a legal way. I also ask your prosecutor to meet and 
examine here to-night, and take depositions of Bro. Wilson and Bro. 
Creitzberg. and of other parties I may be able to secure. You will not 
give me your case, that is very evident. The defense now must put its 
case into the hands of the original prosecutor and original accusers. 

Judge Clark : So far as that matter is concerned, if Dr. Kilgo wishes 
to take depositions of . . . 

Dr. Kilgo : I object to that. I want your prosecutor to be present. 

Judge Clark : I cannot come here to-nignt for I must return on the 
night train. 

Dr. Kilgo : I wish to ask Judge Clark if this legal testimony is docu- 
mentary testimony, where there has been no possibility or opportunity 
for the opponent to cross-examine the witness? Is not that ex parte tes- 
timony? 

Judge Clark : I have just said that I am given thirty days, and in that 
time I will examine the witnesses. 

Dr. Kilgo : That is not the point, Judge, that this court who appoints 
you bears your expenses. 



[ 38 ] 

Judge Clark -. I haven't the time nor the interest in it to do it. 

Dr. Peacock: I think the prosecutor is incompetent ... 

Judge Clark : I move that Peacock be appointed prosecutor if proper. 

Mr. Oglesby : I move to amend that motion by striking all that part 
... I do not think we can try any case where there has been no op- 
portunity for the facts to be fully brought out 

Mr. Tyer : Do I understand that when we adjourn we adjourn till 13th 
of August? 

Dr. Brooks: I would like to inquire, Mr. President, whether the mat- 
ter upon which we acted six weeks ago is to be brought up again? Does 
Judge Clark expect to produce any evidence on any other points, other 
than those which have been brouglat up? 

Dr. Creasy : I want to know something of this testimony. Is it to be 
sworn testimony. 

Dr. KiLGO : I wish to ask this question now : Is this court proposing 
to take the testimony of a common negro, or a common bar-keeper, or 
any other man in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, 
who probably may dislike me for my prohibition views and allow him 
to go before a magistrate, behind my back, and swear to a thing that he 
would not say in my presence, and you take that as testimony? I 
give you notice now, that the testimony that comes here will come here 
by deposition. There is no court on the face of the earth that would 
not grant me that protection. You have a right to send any one to ex- 
amine all of the testimony that I shall present. If you are so unfortu- 
nate as to have a prosecutor who cannot attend to this matter, you un- 
derstand that your court and not the defense, is to blame for it ; and I 
shall give your prosecutor due notice that if he fails to attend, it is your 
fault and not mine. I shall demand the same right to be notified with 
sufficient time to take depositions and cross-examine depositions. The 
prosecution says that without the shadow of a doubt he can prove it, 
and that it will be established when it is here. I propose to be there 
and examine those witnesses, or to have a representative who will do it. 
Now if you are in the predicament that you have not, and cannot get it, 
then it is your lookout. You have forty days, and you have that forty 
days at the demand of a witness, not at the demand of a prosecutor, 
without asking the defense whether it would suit him or not. He has 
had nothing to say. If my character is not worth attending to, and not 
worth the attention of this Board, then what is it worth? Now I want 
no mistake about this matter. I am willing to abide the truth before 
the Lord whom I try to serve, and take the consequences ; but mark 
you, I will not abide half truth, and I will not consent to any 
body of men, or any man's drawing a conclusion on me that 
way. It was charged as one of the crimes of this Board it dealt 
with ex parte testimony. I want to call your attention to something 
else. You have called me here to answer for this charge, "But that was 
the last thing Dr. Kilgo intended I should have a chance to do." Where 
is the witness to prove that? That I absolutely came in here, wrought 
upon you terribly, and had the intention to keep your Board from get- 
ting all the facts. Further, he charges me with sycophancy, and lead- 
ing, in an affluence of sycophancy, a procession to the porch of Mr. 
Duke, and in a public speech extolled him, saying, "My Lord Duke, 
give us money and we will give you a name above all other names." Is 
that witness in Tennessee? That speech was made here in the bounds 
of Durham. I must wait, though, forty long days, and that too w^hile 
this witness is running from one end of the State to the other. Where 



[ 39 ] 

did he get that testimony? Who reported that speech? I stand here to- 
night and say that never such a word escaped my lips. But we must 
hunt the United States over , to find whether it is true. "How much 
personal gratuity had such a man received?" Where will you get your 
witness for that? But still I must wait forty days, and that statement 
must go unanswered. I declare that there is not a man that can pre- 
sent any testimony that will intimate anything like it. Then "Dr. Kil- 
go's record in North Carolina." His "performances in this State," etc. 
They are not claimed to have been committed outside of this State. By 
day and by night, in your Sunday School room and by your firesides, 
and on your streets and on the railroads this record has been made, and 
certainly my record has not been one behind the door; but I must wait 
forty days. 

' 'He was a short time in Tennessee. ' ' Where will you get any wit- 
ness in the whole range of existing beings to testify that I ever lived in 
Tennessee? "One of the most distinguished members of our church in 
the State, not a layman, either." That was not said yesterdaj^, mark 
you ; that statement was made two weeks ago. It was made the last of 
June, and published then nearly twenty days ago, and it has gone all 
over the country. It may be just to say before that time, this man 
made the statement. That name is still kept a secret. 

This is the class of charges, sir, I am to answer, and mark you, one 
or two of these out of the whole eight, with witnesses possjbly outside of 
the State, and the crime committed outside of the State; and yet with a 
great deal of satisfaction that they are all true, and yet not the name of 
a man furnished me by this court. If that is justice then I have stud- 
ied justice in other schools and measured it by other standards, 

I do hope you will not adjourn this court with a man as your prose- 
cutor who can't go with rae to the ends of this earth. You do me an 
injustice to appoint a man who can come back to this court and say 
that sickness kept him from being there. I want those names, and I will 
be there. If you think I intend to stop this matter without being on 
the rock-bottom of justice, you very much mistake me. I don't want 
anybody to come here and say that I have misdealt with them, and I 
hope that you clearly understand me now. 

Judge Clark : I decline to accept the position, I give no reason. Make 
the most of it. 

Mr. Branson : I think that a very cowardly thing in Judge Clark. 

Judge Clark : Mr. Chairman, I come here as a gentleman to be treated 
as a gentleman, etc. 

Mr. Tyer: I hope this court will not put it upon the Judge if he says 
he can't accept it. 

Mr. Peacock .- I said that of course I thought Judge Clark would be 
the proper man to prefer charges, and I wish to state th^t when I said 
somethmg about his inability I had no reference to the Judge's ability 
but as to his time to look after it. 

Motion that Mr. Oglesby be made prosecutor was carried. 

, Mr. Oglesby : As Dr. Kilgo wants a thorough investigation of the 
matter in a short time, I would like to have Mr. Ivey as assistant. 

I renew my motion to strike out that part which says that Judge 
Clark shall have ... 

Dr. Kilgo ; There is a very important point in that, because if you 
say you put the defense in the lead ... 



[ 40 ]. 

Mr. Tyer: I move that Judge Clark be respectfully requested to give 
to the prosecutor the names and postoflQces of those parties from whom 
he proposes to get testimony. 

The motion was carried. 

Mr. JuRNEY : I move that the prosecutor and his assistant be empow- 
ered to appoint any one to assist in taking depositions. 

Dr. KiLGO : I wish to notify you now, that at nine o'clock we will 
take the depositions of Dr. Wilson and Dr. Creitzberg. 

Dr. Peacock : I would like for it to go on record that Judge Clark was 
appointed prosecutor and declined without reason. 

Dr. KiLGO : I wish to call your attention to this, that in taking depo- 
sitions for the defense, that the prosecution will be expected to appear. 

Dr. Creasy : Were the proceedings of this meeting to be kept secret 
or are they to be known to the public? 

Mr. Tyer : This is very important, because men have already asked 
me to tell them as soon as I get back. 

Judge Clark : T would like to know whether the proceedings here are 
to be kept to ourselves or to be made public? I am willing to either. 

Dr. Creasy : I move that the proceedings be made public. 

Mr. Parrish : I think that if they are to be made public it should be 
just what the Secretary has. 

Mr. Bishop: I would just like to say that some of us have only a little 
while, and I would rather sit up here all night long than to have to come 
"back. 

Mr. Ivey moved that the meeting be adjourned till nine o'clock. 

Adjournment. 

Night Session, 9:45 o'clock. 

Minutes were read and approved. 

Dr. Creasy : I move that the records be opened to the public. 

Mr. Wilson : I move that as a substitute for Mr. Creasy's motion, 
that the Executive Committee be authorized to prepare a statement. 

Mr. Bishop : At the close of our session, Judge Clark brought up the 
question, "shall the proceedings be public or private," and we left here 
with the understanding that our proceedings were to be kept quiet, and 
now to come back to-night and reverse this might possibly open up the 
way for some adverse criticism. We may let our records be open. 

Mr. Southgate : There is a time for such things to be made public 
and a time for them not to be made public. I believe something is going 
to be said by somebody about it. I believe what is said ought to be 
officially said, and if anything is to be said at all, let it be at the consent 
and knowledge of those about whom it is to be said. However, I am 
not particular about that, I am not only in favor of what we have done 
here being' made public, but I am in favor of publishing ten thousand 
copies in the Post. This is not the time to open up the proceedings. I 
believe the old general was right when he said, "Just keep still till you 
see the whites of the eyes of the enemy show, etc." 

Dr. Creasy's motion was carried. 



[ 41 ] 

Mr. Oglesby: Suppose a newspaper reporter asks what did you do? 
and we state the germain facts, would that be a violation? 

Mr. Parrish : I am somewhat like Mr. Tyer. Everybody knows we 
have had this meeting, and everybody is going to be asking about it: 
As for myself, nothing can ever be traced from this meeting through 
me. If anyone would like to know from me about this trial, I would 
just say that Judge Clark asked for further time, and it was granted. 

Dr. KiLGO : I wish to again repeat my notice, that I want to take 
depositions to-night of Dr. Wilson and Dr. Creitsberg, and Mr. Bass, so 
that the parties of the Board will be notified, and I will ask the deposi- 
tions to be made before Mr. Tyer. 

Rev. N. M. Jumey moved that D. W. Newsom be recognized as official 
stenographer of the meeting and all further meetings in connection with 
the investigation. Motion carried. 

The Board adjourned to meet according to the resolutions adopted. 



[ 42 ] 



Proceedings of Board of Trustees of Trinity Col- 
lege, Durham, N, C, August 30 and 31, 

Reported by D. W. Newsom, Ofi&cial Stenographer. 



August 30, 5 p. m. — The meeting was called to order by Mr. J. H. 
Southgate, President, and Dr. J. R. Brooks led in prayer. The Secretary 
called the roll, and the minutes were read and approved. The following 
were present: Rev. A. P. Tyer, Mr. J. H. Southgate, Mr. B. N. Duke, 
Hon. Walter Clark, Rev. F. A. Bishop, Rev. G. A. Oglesby, Mr. V. 
Ballard, Mr. E. J. Parrish, Mr. W. H. Branson, Mr. W. R. Odell, Col. 
G. W. Flowers, Rev. J. R. Brooks, D. D. , R. H. Parker, Hon. W. J. 
Montgomery, Rev. S. B. Turrentine, Dr. W. S. Creasy, Prof. O. W. 
Carr, Rev. N. M. Jurney, Rev. T. N. Ivey, D. D., Rev. J. B. Hurley, 
Rev. W. C. Wilson, Dr. Dred Peacock, Mr. A. H. Stokes. 

Messrs. P. H. Hanes and Jos. G. Brown were reported absent because 
they were out of the state on important business. 

Mr. Jurney : I move, Mr. President, that the stenographer appointed 
to report the proceedings of this and other similar meetings, be sworn 
in by a competent officer. I think this is prudent, and I presume Judge 
Clark has no objection. 

Mr. Bishop ; I second the motion. 

Mr. President : You have the right to do that if you so desire, but I 
know no one here authorized to administer the oath. If you do so, it is 
all right with me. I think, gentlemen, in proceedings of this kind there 
is nothing added by swearing, any one. He merely states facts upon 
his honor, and is as much admitted to credence as if sworn. But how 
will you get about it? 

Mr. Jurney : Somebody might criticise the action of the Board by 
saying that Dr. Kilgo appointed a fellow to report the proceedings. If 
I go to give testimony in the court they make me swear to it. Is it not 
usual, Judge Clark, for an official stenographer to be sworn? 

Judge Clark : Official stenographers are always sworn. 

Mr. Bishop : I am with Brother Jurney in that. In case of future 
need, if this were published, it is well for it to come from one sworn. 
Judge Clark, at the request of this Board, can administer this oath. 

Mr. President: Brethren, you have beard the motion; Is there any 
discussion? 

Mr. Creasy: I consider this a church court, and I have never known 
anything like an oath to be administered in such ; and I take it we are 
here as Christian men in the fear of God. I know that I feel that way 
as much as I ever did when I was trying a case in the church. An oath 
would put the matter in the secular field which we do not claim to 
occupy. I take it that the witnesses, stenographer and all these men 
recognized by the Board feel that way about it. It would be a straAge 
proceeding if we had a church trial with sworn witnesses. 



[ 43 J 

Mr. Odell : I am opposed to it. If we have the witnesses sworn 
then it is all right. I am on the same platform as Brother Creasy. 

Mr. JuRNEY: I hope that my young frieivd, the stenographer, does 
not think that I distrust his word. When we last met here, the news- 
papers published a falsehood the very next morning. I am going to do 
the square, honest thing, if the heavens fall. I write long hand, and 
some of us don't write much at all, but I want the thing square and 
honest, and I see no objection to swear the stenographer. But I am 
perfectly willing to leave it to the Board. I suggested it as a matter of 
caution. 

Mr. Wilson: If we can't trust him without swearing him, let's swear 
him. A fellow that will lie without path, will do so on oath. 

Mr. Bishop : In case a dispute should arise, it will be seen that the 
stenographer is sworn in by Judge Clark, and that certainly would 
have weight before the public. I see no impropriety in doing it. 

Mr. President : This Board is self governing. Swear a man if you 
see proper, or not swear him. So, if you favor the motion made by 
Brother Jurney, please say "aye.'' 

The motion was lost. 

Mr. President: It is in order, brethren, for you to arrange any pre- 
liminaries that you wish to arrange in this investigation. 

Judge Clark ; Before you proceed, gentlemen, I have a preliminary 
motion I would like to submit to the Board. 

Here Judge Clark read the following paper : 

"This BoUrd has met for the investigation of mattei's of fact. Its duty 
is similar to that of a jury. In order that its findings may have weight 
outside of this room, the Board must present to the world the stern 
neutrality of impartial judges of the facts. It is an inherert principle 
of justice that no man should sit in determination of disputed issues of 
fact who has any bias, or is in any wise interested in the result, or who 
has formed and expressed his decision in advance. Having myself ex- 
pressed an opinion adverse to the defendant I should not think of voting 
upon any question in this trial, and as a member of this Board, as well 
as in the capacity of one who has been requested by you to procure and 
present evidence and is therefore entitled to have it impartially weighed, 
I have a right to ask that no one shall vote who has formed and ex- 
pressed opinions in favor of the defendant, or who sustains relations to 
him or to this controversy, which would disqualify him as a juror. 

In making this demand for an impartial jurj'^ I intend no reflection 
upon the moral character of any one present, since the similar challenge 
in courts of justice is not so held. It is not a reflection upon the part3^ 
challenged, but a demand for impartiality. It would be no benefit to 
Dr. Kilgo, or to this Board, if a result is declared by those who in part 
or as a whole have already prejudged the case. 

Therefore, with the greatest personal respect I call the attention of 
this Board to the following facts : On June 7, this Board adopted, in my 
absence, the report of a committee, that ' 'after careful consideration of 
the matter of correspondence" between Dr. Kilgo and myself, they 
found me "unfair and uncharitble,' heartily endorsed Dr. Kilgo and his 
administration and asked me to resign. And now I am asked to lay 
before this Board evidence which calls in question 'this endorsement of 
his administration and this condemnation of myself. This is require 
the matter to be considered by the very jury that has once decided it 
and to ask you to sit in your own case and condemn your own conduct. 



[ 44 J 

This would not be permitted in a petty case involving the petty sum 
of $5.00 in a court of justice. N6 matter how honorable the members 
of the Board may be they can not be absolutely impartial in passing 
upon evidence calling in question the correctness of their former find- 
ings. Mr. Southgate says that the following 21 Trustees voted on the 
resolution, only one of them being against its adoption i. e. Revs. N. M 
Jurney, T. N. Ivey, W. C. Wilson, G. A. Oglesby, F. A. Bishop, J. R. 
Brooks, A. P. Tyer, J. B. Hurley, W. S. Creasy, P. L. Groom and 
Messrs. B. N. Duke, W. H. Branson, V. Ballard, R. A. Mayer, A. H. 
Stokes, J. H. Southgate, E. J. Parrish, P. H. Hanes, W. R. Odell, G. 
W. Flowers and O. W. Carr, all of whom have thus formally passed 
upon the controversy, though I have been informed that Mr. Southgate 
was in error as to two of those named who, it is claimed, did not vote 
upon the resolution. 

Furthermore, at the called meeting on the 18th of July I was present 
in consequence of your request that I aid you with evidence in the 
investigation begun at his instance, I presume, as he had stated in the 
press that he would call for it. I stated that not having laid any charges 
before your Board, I was not prepared with legal evidence but that if the 
Board would give me time I would try to furnish it, if desired. That I 
believed every word I had stated in respect to Dr. Kilgo was strictly and 
literally true, and stated nothing except upon good authority but being 
matters not upon my own knowledge it would require some time and 
trouble to get the evidence in legal shape. On his return home Mr. 
Joseph G. Brown, one of the Trustees stated to a gentleman (who was 
not a Trustee) that the entire Board was for Dr. Kilgo to a man, and 
against me. This expression, of a jury as to a cause pending before it 
would disqualify it in any court of justice. 

The Trustee referred to is a careful and observant man and his con- 
clusion agrees very nearly with my own on that occasion when I was 
received not as an invited witness to aid the Board in a bona fide inves- 
tigation but rather as if I were defendant in the cause and your Board 
were co-prosecutors with Dr Kilgo. 

Furthermore since the I8th of July at the meeting of the District 
Conferences, pending the investigation of this very matter whether the 
Board should endorse the administration of Dr. Kilgo, and while he was 
under investigation by you, may of this Board have voted I am informed 
for Resolutions endorsing Dr. Kilgo, and some of them, I am told 
were influential in having such resolutions passed. After, this triple 
decision of the issue before you, it would be difficult to convince your 
Board to a contrary effect, unless members who have been so decided 
in their convictions in favor of Dr. Kilgo are eliminated from the 
hearing. 

In addition to these, are other occasions still, in which members of 
this Board have expressed themsfelves upon Dr. Kilgo's side as to the 
matter now to be investigated, I respectfully submit there are personal 
reasons why several of the Board should feel themselves incapacitated 
to sit. 

Mr. B. N. Duke can not possibly, from the nature of the case, be held 
an impartial juror in a matter which calls in question the propriety of 
Dr. Kilgo's attitude in regard to the Cigarette Trust and the relations of 
the Duke family to this college. Rev. Mr. Brooks, Rev. Mr. Cole (and 
possibly others) I am told are witnesses for Dr, Kilgo and they could not 
be proper jurors when they are to pass upon their own evidence contra- 
dicted by conflicting testimony. Their own tesimony is necessarily a 
decision in advance against the other side, controlling their own votes 
and necessarily influential with those sitting with them. At the meet- 
ing of th'e Board on July 18th as aforesaid. Revs. F. A. Bishop and T. 



[ 45 ] 

N. Ivey, Messrs. Dred Peacock, W. J. Montgomery and possibly others 
were present aiding and advising Dr. Kilgo and making sug estions to 
him, acting as an associate counsel as it were, and it would be without 
precedent that they should sit as jurors; with expectation of being abso- 
lutely without bias in favor of the side they had counselled. If either 
of these gentlemen will say I am mistaken as to him I will strike out 
his name. Rev. T. N. Ivey has besides during this controversy indicated 
in the Advocate so clearly his convictions in favor of Dr. Kilgo, to whom 
also his relations are so well known, that I presume he will not offer to 
sit as a juror. 

Mr. Southgate, presiding oflScer of this Board, had a controversy with 
me, which was published in the papers, over the very points now to be 
decided. After such public expression ot his views, it is possible, of 
course, that evidence might persuade him that he was wrong and I was 
right, but it would assuredly require, according to ordinary human nature, 
considerably more weight of evidence th^n to retain him in his publicly 
expressed views. At the aforesaid meeting, on i8th July, Rev. Mr. Jur- 
ney advocated, as a matter of policy, giving time to get up evidence, and 
then, as if fearing his position might be misunderstood, he said to this 
Board, "I am a Kilgo man. I told the District Conference at Rocking- 
ham yesterday I was coming here to fight for Kilgo; that I should fight 
for him with my fingers and with my teeth, and when my teeth gave out 
I would gum it for him. " He is also an agent in the service of the present 
administration of the College. He himself will hardly contend, I should 
think, that he is a competent juror in the investigation of a party for 
whom he is prepared to "gum" it. At the same meeting, on July i8, W. 
H. Branson, forgetful of what was due to himself, to your honorable 
Board, and to myself, who was here at your request as well as in my 
capacitv as Trustee, used grossly insulting language to me in your pres- 
ence because I said I could not get. up the evidence you wished unless 
time was given. I alone rebuked him and further reminded him I stood 
here alone, one man against twenty-three. Mr. Southgate did say to me 
that I should be protected, but I told him I did not need protection, I 
could protect myself; that what I wanted was decent conduct. Mr. Bran- 
son is also, I am informed, an employee of the Dukes. If any one else 
present showed disapprobation of Mr. Branson's remarkable conduct it is 
known to himself. Certainly it was not sufficiently pronounced to pro- 
cure up to this moment any apology from Branson either to myself or to 
your Board, so far as I am informed. At that same meeting, on i8th of 
July, another of the Board, insisting that no time should be given to get 
up evidence, suggested that failure to lay before you evidence sufiicient to 
convince you of the correctness of my views might be followed by expul- 
sion. I think this was Rev. Mr. Tyer. If it was not he. I will be glad to 
have him correct me. If, therefore, failure to convince this jury that my 
views of Dr. Kilgo are correct is ground for expulsion, there is additional 
reason why I am entitled to an impartial jury, none of whom shall have 
formally expressed opinions strongly in favor of Dr. Kilgo and condemna 
tory of myself. 

It is true that the letter of the President of your Board announcing this 
investigation and requesting me to aid with evidence says "the investiga- 
tion will be confined to Dr. Kilgo,'' but on the former investigation, 
though both Mr. Southgate and Di. Kilgo say that he alone was on trial, 
yet in some unaccountable way the verdict and judgment were rendered 
against me. Therefore, as a member of the Board — as one invited by you 
to lay evidence before you, and as one whom one of your Board has 
threatened with expulsion if the evidence is not sufiicient to convince the 
Board (and therefore sufficient to change the views of those members who 
have expressed opinions favorable to Dr. Kilgo), I demand a right which 



[ 46 ] 

the justice of the English speaking race has always and everywhere 
granted to the humblest — a fair, unbiased and impartial jury in the ascer- 
tainment of the facts — and that each member shall be examined whether 
he has formed and expressed an opinion as to any of the points in con 
troversy. 

I do not doubt the entire sincerity of those members of the Board who 
have so frequently, and some of them so violently, expressed their opin- 
ions upon this controversy in favor of Dr. Kilgo. Their absolute convic- 
tion is what disqualifies them. The early martyrs were tortured and put 
to death by men absolutely convinced that they were doing God service. 

Dr Kilgo is a minister, and there are some ministers (though I hope 
very few) who think, erroneously, that a criticism upon one of the order 
is an attack upon the whole order, and, therefore, in their opinions, upon 
the church and upon religion itself, and I stand here a layman before a 
tribunal a majority of which present are probably ministers. I have been 
pronounced in my views against the illegality of trusts, and I have con- 
curred with the resolutions of the Western North Carolina Conference 
against the sale and manufacture of cigarettes, and I stand here, by. the 
terms of your invitation, in "Benefactor's Parlor, Duke's Building," a 
room thus doubly labelled with the reminder of the cigarette business, 
the influence of whose vast accumulations is like the darkness of Egypt 
in that it cannot only be seen but can be felt. This institution becomes 
itself a partner in that very business by being the holder of a large block 
of its stock, from which it derives no small part of its income. 

As an act of justice to yourselves, to the College and to myself — an act 
of justice that no North Carolinian should ever seek in vain — I ask that 
the triers be polled and that no one shall sit on this investigation who is 
not absolutely and altogether impartial and uncommitted by former de- 
liberate expressions of his views. 

[See report of the committee to which this challenge 
wasYeferred.] 

Mr. Jurney: Judge Clark misquotes me in reference to what I said about 
standing by Kilgo. I have no objection to state my meaning. It is sim- 
ply this: I remember turning to Judge Clark and saying I was in favor 
of giving him all the justice and fairness he was entitled to, but said I am 
going to stand by Kilgo and Trinity College, and it is my duty and priv- 
ilege to do that until these charges Judge Clark has made are proved. I 
didn't say I came here for Kilgo, but for Kilgo and Trinity College. I 
said I would fight for them till my teeth were knocked out and then I 
would chew for them with my gums. 

Judge Clark: How would that do for a juror? 

Mr. JURNE\ : I said just as sure as God reigns if you prove these charges 
it will have its weight. So far as I am concerned, in all my speeches for 
the Memorial Hall throughout the District Conference, I have not alluded 
to this matter in a speech. Parties have asked me lo explain, but I have 
never brought it into any speech. 

Mr. OgleSBY: As prosecutor I ask the privilege of making a statement. 
If I understand it, sir, this is a proposition upon the part of the Board of 
Trustees of Trinity College to investigate Judge Clark's charges against 
Dr. Kilgo. I do not understand that this is Judge Clark's matter or any 
other man's. I do not believe that there is a man here who will treat 
him unfairly. I do not believe that any man here will weigh one feather 
of testimony unfairly. I think Judge Clark's paper is entirely out of or- 
der, far-fetched, and a practical putting of himself, so far as he is person- 



[ 47 ] 

ally interested in the matter, beyond any man for anything else than the 
straightest, sternest justice at the hands of every member of this Board. 
I do not hesitate to say that he has had all the latitude a man wants in 
getting up testimony, and he has had the entire forty days in which to do 
it. I hope he will withdraw that paper. I do not know a man on the 
Board that could be hired to do him or any other person an injustice. I 
do not think a man here could be induced by favors to give a partial trial. 
This paper practically would put the whole question out of the court. 

Dr. Brooks: lam not one to hang around court-hou.ses. I had rather 
be at home in the work of the church than to be here to-day. Judge 
Clark is mistaken as to my being summoned as a witness. As for the first 
reason given for our being incompetent to set on this case, viz., that we* 
decided another case on June 7, I have this to say: The correspondence 
was referr .d to a committee and report was brought before this Board and 
adopted. I thought that ended that matter, as to this Board. I remem- 
ber that on July 18 I called up that question two or three times and asked 
the Chairman it were to take into consideration in the meeting the cor- 
respondence submitted in the June meeting. I understood that was al- 
ready decided and would not come before the Board. But the statements 
would be considered which were made by Judge Clark in his letter or in 
his interview with newspaper reporters, after this was reported Conse- 
quently I think our action in June has nothing to do with the action of 
today. 

Dr. Creasy: As I said a while ago we are not here as a legal body but as a 
church Court; and as I see it I think Judge Clark's paper should go on the 
records of this meeting. It is a very remarkable paper. The public must 
decide on this thing. We want it to know everything that has been said 
concerning the matter. Let Judge Clark's complaint goon record and 
the evidence that is produced, and let the public say whether these men 
deserve the inuendoes that have been cast at them this afternoon. Let 
all the testimony be printed and circulated and then the world can decide 
whether we have decided to hold up a man i/ he is guilty. That is the 
way out of it. We are not here to swear men; we are here as a church 
court, and I make the motion that we proceed and let all, the papers be 
recorded and published and that we proceed with this investigation, and 
that this paper go on record hs the statement of a witness. 

Mr. Bishop: I want to ask Judge Clark if the paper was produced by 
him and his associate. 

Judge Clark: The paper speaks for itself. 

Mr. Creasy: You refuse to be prosecutor, what other relation do you 
occupy? 

Judge Clark; I was requested lo bring what evidence I could here, but 
I am not a witness. 

Mr. Tyer: I want to know if, when the question was up at the last 
meeting and the motion was made that the Judge be prosecutor, the 
[udge did not state that he was only a witness, and if the Chair did not 
rule that he was a witness. 

Mr. President: I said the Judge was not prosecutor but I don't think 
I said that he was a witness. 

.v.r. Tyer: I would like to ask what is the recollection of the Board. 

Mr. Creasy: I am willing for his paper to go as a part of the proceed- 
ings. 



[ 48 ] 

Dr. KiLGO: The defense would like to have the motion read. 
Motion was read. Mr. Parrish seconded it. 

Moved that the paper of Judge Clark on record as part of the proceed- 
ings, and that all valid testimony in this investigation be spread on the 
minutes. 

Dr. Kii^GO: I protest against the word "testimony" as it appears, unless 
the court defines what is meant by testimony. Whether it be valid testi- 
mony or not the defense will not consent to any amount of bosh and ru- 
mor and falsehood to go on record in this case, brought here in an illegal 
manner. If Dr. Creasy will introduce it as "valid testimony" the defense 
will not object. 

Dr. Creasy accepted the suggestion and the motion was adopted. 

Judge Ci^ark: I wish to ofifer this paper. It will take very little time. 
"The lack of power in this board to procure the compulsory attendance 
of witnesses renders it impossible to place the evidence before you as 
otherwise could readily be done. Out of more than a dozen witnesses of 
'repute in South Carolina who are known to have stated recently that Dr. 
Kilgo was well known as a wire-puller and politician only two obeyed the 
notice issued by this Board to take their depositions — some verbally reit- 
erating the statement but declining to give depositions. Out of a large 
number summoned here to testify in person only three are in attendance. 
Even in civil courts where attendance of witnesses can be compelled it is 
easier as every one knows, to procure witnesses to prove good character 
than to get those to testify whose evidence is of a contrary tendency. 
When your request to get up this evidence was accepted, it was under- 
stood that Methodists, and especially Methodist ministers, would obey 
your supoena. But as this is is not a church trial many of them refuse to 
do so, and not being a civil trial no process to procure witnesses can be 
enforced. 

The investigation under these circumstances is so disadvantageous that 
the evidence as to the truth of every charge, which is abundant, can only 
be brought here in much diminished quantity. The plan prescribed by 
your Board of requiring the other side to be furnished the names of wit- 
nesses in advance necessarily gave to the friends of the defendant every 
opportunity to work upon their fears and prevent their testimony. It 
would open up a new controversy to allege that this opportunity has 
been used but it may be frankly said that two important witnesses, now 
in this State, who know thoroughly Dr. Kilgo's reputation in South Car- 
lina, and have repeatedly stated it to be that of a wire-pulling politician 
and expressed their readiness to testify, if su-bpcenaed, have now declined 
to testify before your Board, because they aver it will expose them to in 
jury at the hands of Dr. Kilgo's faction and the large business interest 
which is backing him. Others have expressed the same fear of vengeance 
as ground for refusing to testify to statements they have made as to Dr. 
Kilgo and which they still affirm to be the truth. If such fear should be 
held groundless by you the result is still the same and in the absence of 
power to compel witnesses to attend, it is submitted to your Board that 
the investigation will be so one-sided under such circumstances, that as a 
search for truth it will leave very much unproven which otherwise could 
be proven." 

Dr. Kilgo : Mr. Chairman, the defense has a right to say something 
at this point. The first motion which your witness [Judge Clark] made 
to this court is to block any investigation. That is what it means ; it 
means nothing less. Beginning with the first correspondence there was 



[ 49 ] 

great dodging of the issue, and then at last there was failure to be here 
when the letters were before this Board. After a number of days' 
notice, at your called meeting in July, there was still another failure. 
Now, at your call meeting of August 30, there is a paper presented 
which means: "I do not want a trial." It was not worth while to pre- 
sent so long a paper to say that. Every time, sir, the defence has been 
here, ready. Now the charge that is made in that paper, that the Board 
intended to give to the defence the names of witnesses, giving him suffi- 
cient time to intimidate those witnesses, is to me, sir, the worst coarse- 
ness I have ever known thrown into the face of gentlemen. But what 
are the facts ? Those names were not given to the defence till thirty 
hours before the defence had to be on the road to take the depositions. 
These are the facts. As to the charge that men in South Carolina were 
unwilling to testify in this matter, I repudiate it in the name of every 
honest man whose name was presented as a witness, I know those men, 
sir, as colleagues in the ministry, as colleagues in various other work, 
and to fling into the face of such men as James H. Carlisle, George 
Cofield. Jesse Clifton, and George Waddell, the intimation that they 
would talk behind my back what they would not say to my face is more 
than I will stand as a man, as a brother, and as a Christian, when they 
are not here to answer for themselves. No man in this room would go 
before their faces and say that they will gossip around street corners. 
What are the facts, sir ? I have a letter here in my possession showing 
what one of those men testified to. The testimony of some of those 
witnesses did not suit the prosecution. I ask your court, sir, have you 
a deposition from Jesse A. Clifton, of Sumter, S. C. ? 

Mr. Chairman : Mr. Beckwith informs me that there is a certificate 
from Mr. Clifton. 

Dr. KiLGO : Certificate ! That is the point. Why was not that man 
sworn by a Magistrate or a Notary, as others ? Why did the prosecution 
bring a certificate here that is valueless, knowing the court must refuse 
to take it ? There is one of your South Carolina maligners, and I know 
what he said when approached. He sent a copy of this certificate to me 
also. I will not be untrue to the laws of right, and offer his letter to 
you as testimony. Where is the deposition of George H. Waddell? 
These men don't know how they got to be witnesses. They never 
promised a man they would testify, or corresponded about it. They 
know nothing of Judge Clark, and to say that those men said one thing 
and then backed down ! These are the facts. I wish to say to the Board 
that so far as the defence is concerned, let this investigation go on. We 
are not charletans and I am not dodging anything. We will go on with 
the testimony. 

Mr. Cole : According to my best memory, Judge Clark, at our last 
meeting, asked for more time — thirty days — saying that his evidence 
was of a private kind, of private conversations which he could not make 
public, but that if he was given thirty days' time he would have the 
evidence in, and that if those men refused to testify, he would be willing 
to state publicly that he had been lied to and would withdraw the charge. 
That is my recollection. 

Mr. JuRNEY : I remember distinctly that I turned to Judge Clark and 
said : My understanding is that Judge Clark already has the evidence in 
possession, and I said : Is not that so. Judge ? And he said it was, and 
all he wanted was time. 

Mr. Chairman : Brethren, are there any preliminaries ? 

Mr. Bishop : I want to say in regard to Judge Clark's demand that 
these Trustees be sent off the jury, that we were appointed by the 



[ so ] 

Church in North Carolina to look after its interests. If Judge Clark has 
evidence that they are dishonest in our action here, he can prefer charges 
at the Annual Conference. 

Mr. Oglesby : It seems to me, sir. we might proceed. This is a mat- 
ter, brethren, in which the Board proposes to investigate the charges of 
Judge Clark against John C. Kilgo, President of Trinity College. The 
sum of the whole thing would amount to his unfitness to be President of 
Trinity College. The following charges were specified: 1. That his 
reputation in South Carolina was that of a wire-puller of a ward- 
politician type, and that his performances in this State would justify 
this. 2. That he was in Ttnnessee and was known there' as a scrub 
politician. 3. Sycophancy in reference to Mr. Duke. 4. That he had 
received a personal gratuity from Mr. Duke. 5. That Dr. Kilgo intended 
to prevent Judge Clark from having an opportunity to present testi- 
mony. 6. That in some of his lectures or sermons, he advocated trusts. 
7. That he had gotten up a controversy with John R. Webster and Dr. 
Kingsbury, and was trying to get one up with Judge Clark. These are 
the statements as charged in the papers. 

Dr. Kilgo : I wish to call attention to the bill of indictment furnished 
me by your President : 

Durham, N. C, August 12, 1898. 
Mr. B. C. Beckwith, Raleigh, N. C: 

Dear Sir: — The charges referred to in your appointment as deputy 
for Rev. Gr. A Oglesby, and concerning which depositions are to be 
taken by you, are as follows : 

1st. That Dr. John C. Kilgo wished to evade evidence Judge Cl3.rk 
had against him. 

2d. The speech Judge Clark quoted him as making on Mr. Duke's 
porch, and other references to this speech. 

3d. Dr. Kilgo's reputation in South Carolina. 

4th. Dr. Kilgo's residency and reputation in Tennessee. 

5th. Dr. Kilgo's record in North Carolina. 

These charges you will find in Judge Clark's recent communications 
addressed to me as President of the Board of Trustees, and printed in 
papers which are accessible to you. 

Judge Clark is expected to furnish you at once with the names and 
addresses of the parties whose depositions are to be taken. These you 
will please, without delay, transmit through me to the defendant, that 
he may arrange to be present in person or by proxy when the depositions 
are taken. Yours truly, 

G. A. Oglesby, Prosecutor. 

By J. H. S. 

Mr. Oglesby : I have tried to quote the exact language. 

Dr. Kilgo : Read your two last charges [they were read]. No, I never 
had a controversy with John R. Webster ; the Lord knows I didn't. 

Mr. Chairman : Let us have no misunderstanding. Do the Trustees 
expect to act in a judicial capacity and decide on points of law ? I want 
this point settled now. This, it seems to me, is neither a civil trial 
subject to civil proceedure, nor an ecclesiastical trial subject to ecclesi- 
astical proceedure. You are a self-governing body, subject to natural 
and regular regulations. Now I want this understood, that nobody here 
is personally on trial. We are not to swear jurors to try either Judge 
Clark or Dr. Kilgo. But you sit here as Trustees of an institution to 



[ 51 ] 

hear charges and to vote on the evidence unfolded to you, not on what 
you know of your own personal knowledge. We seek to do nobody an 
injustice, but honestly seek the truth. Now before you proceed further 
with those letters have no misunderstanding as to the charges and the 
specifications thereunder. 

Mr. Oglesby : I think it is your function to decide questions of law in 
regard to testimony. I think it would be quite wrong to say that the* 
Board should undertake it. 

Mr. Chairman : I have been waiting to hear something to the contrary 
of my suggestion. We proceed now, provided there is no misunder- 
standing between you as to the nature of these charges. If the defence 
complains that he has not had notice of these things, let him have 
justice now and the same with the prosecution. 

Mr. Oglesby : I am ready to agree with the defence as to the form of 
the charges presented. 

Dr. KiLGO: I was just waiting for you to organize. Do I understand 
that you [the chair] settle these points of law, or the Board ? 

Mr. JuRNEY : Let the chair decide and we can appeal from that. 

Dr. KiLGO : In the last two charges made by the prosecution the mat- 
ter was taken from the old correspondence, which you settled in June, 
i. e. , in reference to the controversy with Mr. Kingsbury and Mr. Page, 
and in reference to my political views I understood that you sum- 
moned me before you for the new charges, and you so sent me those 
charges, and to those charges I come to answer, and for those charges i 
have secured testimony, and these are your charges, which are dated 
August 12, 1898. 



[See bill of charges.] 



Mr. Chairman : Will the prosecution read the charges to see if they 
harmonize ? 

Mr. Cole : It seems to me you can act only on the charges that were 
given to the defence. 

Mr. Chairman : I understand that the prosecution and the defence 
differ as to the subject matter of these charges. 

Dr. KiLGO: I have no objection to your investigating any charge. I 
have a clear conscience before God, and you may drum up anything and 
investigate it till the judgment ; but when you send me charges — charges 
that I was to answer to now, sir, I am not going to dodge them. It is 
my clear opinion, on what seems very good evidence, that under this 
new charge, not before given to me, there will be an attempt to treat 
me unfairly, and I say candidly to you I do not expect fair dealings from 
those who prosecute this matter, and I therefore make my demand in 
law. If you want to arraign me for another charge, appoint your meet- 
ing and I will meet you ; but I will not answer to the charge you bring. 
So far as my political views are concerned, I say it in this presence, it is 
nobody's business. I am not here to answer for them, nor for any con- 
troversy that Dr. Kingsbury had with me. I do not deny it. I plead 
guilty. I stand by every word I wrote, and you need go no further in 
that matter. If I am arraigned for that I plead guilty, and I retract 
to-day not one word. I want the court to decide what I shall answer to. 

Mr. JuRNEY : I move that we proceed with the charges furnished. 

Mr. Chairman : I would say here before starting the investigation, 
that it might be well for us to adjourn for supper. 



[ 52 J 

Mr. Tyer : I suggest that we fix every preliwinary nom. 

Mr. Odell: I move that we adjourn till 8:30 p. in. 

Mr. Oglesby : I have here the correspondence concerning this matter 
between myself and Judge Clark and Mr. Southgate, which I want to 
place in the hands of the court. I don't know that there is anything in 
It of importance, but I want it preserved. 

Dr. Creasy: I second Mr. Odell's motion. 

The motion was put and carried. 

NIGHT SESSION. 

[For colloquy concerning extra stenographer, see appen- 
dix.] 

The minutes of the afternoon session were read and approved. 

Mr. Chairman: That was the understanding of the charges we had in 
hand when we adjourned. 

Judge CIvARK: I want to call 5'our attention to one thing you have left 
out. That is the fourth charge, "his record in North Carolina. " Look at 
all three of the letters and you will find that his record in North Carolina 
is not there. "You will find in the fourth charge in the letters to me and 
Mr. Beckwith his record in North Carolina." 

Dr. KiLGO: The defence makes the point that no such charge was ever 
made. The prosecution has quoted the very words and letter this meet- 
ing was called to investigate. Produce the letter and you will find those 
are the very words. The defence is not here to answer his four years in- 
cumbency of his office. He is here to answer the charges made in the 
published letter of Judge Clark. 

Judge CI/ARk: When you go to trial you go for the matter which you 
present, and when you turn over to me, Dr. Kilgo and Mr. Beckwith a 
letter in which one of the charges is "his record in North Carolina," you 
e;xpect to try him by that charge. 

Dr. KiIvGO: Who drew these charges ? 

Judge Ci^ark: Mr. Southgate presented them. 

Mr. Ogi^KSBy: I had the charges formulated. 

Dr. KiIvGo: What do you mean by record in North Carolina? 

Mr. OGiyESBY: I quoted the identical language, "His performances in 
this State justify his former reputation." 

Dr. KiIvGo: It brings up my record here to prove my South Carolina 
reputation ? That's what you say ? 

Mr. OgIvESBy: That your record here is in keeping with your record 
there. 

Dr. KiivGO: That is what I want to know. 

Judge CIvARk: May I have read the letter Mr. Southgate wrote me ? 

L/Ctter was read. [See p. 28.] 
Mr. Chairman: Is the prosecution ready ? 
Mr. Ogi^esby: Yes, sir. 



[ 53 ] 

Mr. Chairman: Is the defence ready ? 

Dr. KiLGO: Yes, sir. I deny every one of the charges, unless you wish 
to maintain the charge of my record in North Carolina. 

Mr. Chairman: There are some personal witnesses here. I think it 
would be well to examine these first and take up the depositions later. 
What do you desire about it, Mr. Prosecutor ? 

Mr. Ogi^ESBY: Any way, sir. 

. Mr. Chairman : What suits the defence ? 

Dr. Kii,GO: It makes no dififeience to me. 

Mr. Jurney: I move that the witnesses here give their testimony sepa- 
rately. 

Mr. Chairman: Unless there is objection the witnesses will retire till 
they are called. 

Mr. Parrish: Is it necessary to pass that motion ? 

Judge Clark: It is a very unusual one, gentlemen. 

Mr. Jurney: It is no reflection on the witnesses. I only want to go 
into this work. I am willing for them to stay. I withdraw the motion. 

Mr, Beckwith^s Mvidence. 

Mr. Beckwith was put on the stand. Examined by Mr. 
Oglesby: 

Ques. What is your full name ? 
Ans. B. C. Beckwith. 

Ques. Where do you live ? 
Ans. In Raleigh, N. C. 

Ques. How long have you lived there ? 
Ans. Twenty -one or two years. 

Ques. Do you know John C. Kilgo ? 
Ans. Yes, sir, I know him. 

Ques. Do you know his general character in South Carolina ? 
Ans. I think I do, if you mean his general reputation in South Caro- 
lina. 

Dr. Kii^GO: I want that answer very positive, Mr. Beckwith. 

Mr. Beckwith: I do. 

Ques. What is his general reputation in South Carolina ? 
Ans. As I gather it, sir, it is that he is a manipulator and wire-puller, 
and now if you will allow me I should like a word of explanation. 

(Dr. Kilgo objected to this.) 

Ques. You observe, Mr. Beckwith, that the charge is that of a wire- 
puller of the ward politician type. Do you find that to be his reputation 
in South Carolina? 

Ans. If you will allow me to explain — 

(Dr. Kilgo again objected, calling for a direct answer.) 
Mr. Beckwith: I think I should be allowed to explain. 



[ 54 ] 

Dr. KiivGO: Mr. Chairman, he has no right to explain that matter. He 
has been asked a direct question. Let him answer it. 

Judge CiyARK: I have been in the practice of law over thirty years and 
never knew that request refused in any court of justice, I have known 
it asked time and again and never knew it declined. I ask that he be 
allowed to explain his testimony. 

Mr. Bkckwith: Mr. Chairman, in justice to myself I ask to be allowed 
to explain. In obedience to a subpoena — 

Dr. Kii,GO: I wish the court to decide on that question. 

Mr. Chairman: The Chair rules that he be allowed to explain his tes- 
timony. If the defence objects, let it be noted in writing, 

Dr, KiivGo: Then I understand you admit it as testimony. 

Mr. Chairman: I think he should be allowed to say why he formed 
his opinion. The exceptions can be noted. The Trustees may give such 
weight to it as they will, 

Mr. Beckwith: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that in obedience to a 
subpoena issued by Jas. H. Southgate, President of Board of Trustees of 
Trinity College, I am here on this stand, I obeyed that because it came 
from this institution. I am a graduate of Trinity College. While at my 
home attending to my own affairs I received this, your letter, hereby ap- 
pointing me to represent the prosecution as deputy for Rev. Mr. Oglesby 
for taking depositions. In obedience to that commission, on the 15th day 
of August I left my home and went into South Carolina to perform a very 
unpleasant duty, I entered South Carolina at Rock Hill, and from the 
15th till the 23d I was in South Carolina. I met a great many men, and 
will say here that whe'n I entered South Carolina I did not know a man 
in it, A list of names had been furnished me and I was authorized to 
take their depositions. I met quite a number of gentlemen and talked 
with them. I went there under your commission to find out the truth of 
this matter, or the reputation of Dr. Kilgo in South Carolina, I met 
some of the leading men in the State, a great many of them, and man after 
man said to me — 

(Dr. Kilgo interrupted, saying, "I object to that as hearsgiy testimony- 
He had a chance to take their depositions; why did he not do it? Such 
evidence would be ruled out in any court,") 

Mr. Chairman : The witness is endeavoring to explain. 

Dr. Kilgo : He is endeavoring to give rumors here from witnesses that 
the defence had no chance to know. 

Judge Clark: What is reputation. It is necessarily hearsay. It can 
be nothing else and when a witness wants to explain why he has formed 
his opinion, he can give nothing else but hearsay. Wait till he gives 
the testimony. 

Mr. Beckv^^ith : I don't know anything about his character except 
of hearsay, because when I left North Carolina, I did not know that he 
had a character in South Carolina, except by hearsay, 

Mr. Chairman: In explanation, you took deposition? 

Mr. Beckwith : I took depositions. 

Mr. Chairman: With the men of whom you took depositions and 
came into contact with legally — I understand that is what the Board 
seeks. This is your opinion from those you came in direct contact 
with? 



[ 55 J 

Dr. KiLGO : I wish that you would decide now who is the prosecutor 
in this case. 

Mr. Chairman : The Board. 

Dr. KiLGO : I hope you will act as prosecutor. I mean no reflection 
on Mr. Oglesby ; but if the Supreme Court of North Carolina declined to 
be prosecutor at one time and now assumes to be prosecutor, then I 
would like to know it openly. 

Judge Clark : I am under the impression that I am a member of the 
Board and if I am I have a right to ask questions, just as any other 
member. 

[Here Judge Clark made a statement about the nature of 
hearsay evidence, but he spoke so low and so rapidly that 
the stenographer could not get it coherently.] 

Dr. KiLGO : I understand that you have ruled on that point, that it is 
hearsay testimony and not in order. 

Mr. Chairman : My ruling was this ; that he could explain his opinion 
from facts that he ascertained on his own knowledge from personal con- 
tact with through his own efforts. 

Mr. Beckwith : That is the only way I found it out. 

Dr. KiLGO: I raise objections to the point. He started to tell what 
some one else told him about my reputation. Any one can see that there 
is quite a difference between reputation being the general opinion of a 
community into which he went and a stranger "going into that commu- 
nity and asking some one what is this reputation, and getting that and 
bringing it here second-handed. Why did j^ou not put these witnesses 
on the stand? 

Mr. Beckwith : I will answer that by saying they they declined to go 
on the stand. 

Dr. KiLGO : That is just the point I made. 

Mr. JuRNEY: I hope you will not permit heresay testimony to come 
into this court. I can go down into South Carolina and get hearsay 
testimony to hang any man. Testimony brought here should be depo- 
sitions. 

Mr. SouTHGATE : I don't understand the witness to be giving in evi- 
dence here at this point but as asking the privilege of explaining why 
he entertained an opinion, and the court can attach to the explanation 
whatever importance they wish. 

Mr. Bishop : We ought to take up no time on this hearsay evidence. 

Mr. SouTHGATE: I want to make this point, "We can't complete this 
work if every member reserves the right to interrupt the progress of the 
case when there is a witness on tne stand. When the prosecution and 
defense have finished and the cross-examinations have been made if 
there is any one of you who wishes to explain anything, you are at 
liberty to ask questions, but please be quiet until the prosecution has 
finished. 

Mr. Tyer: We understand that we have no right to ask any questions 
until that is finished. 



[ -56 J 

Mr. SouTHGATE: -Yes. Then if any one wishes to ask a proper ques- 
tion it is all right. 

Dr. Peacock: That applies to all the Board? 

Mr. Chairman: Yes, sir. 

Mr. Beckwith: I knew nothing whatever of his reputation in South 
Carolina, till I went there at your command, a very unpleasant duty. 
I obeyed your subpoena. I did not run from it. I am not accustomed to 
run from them and especially those of a church. I am here at your 
command. I said that I knew Dr. Kilgo's reputation in South Carolina. 
You asked what it was, and I said it was that of a wire-puller and a 
manipulator and then I asked to explain. I gather that from conversa- 
tion with gentlemen in South Carolina— men who know Dr. Kilgo and 
his reputation, those men said to me— (Here Dr. Kilgo objected). I am 
not going into detail unless you want it. I was explaining upon 
what I based my testimony. I only know his reputation in South Car- 
olina from what others say and that is the only reputation a man has. 
I went there to investigate this matter under your authority. I took 
depositions and had a list of names. Frequently they talked to me and 
very freely ; but declined to go upon the stand and I had no method of 
compelling them to do so. They talked with me and from that — and I 
think I must have talked with fifty or seventy-five about this matter — 
I come here and say I know his reputation in South Carolina; it is that 
of a manipulator and wire-puller. 

Dr. Kilgo : Mr. Beckwith how long were you in South Carolina? 

Mr. Beckwith : I think about ten or twelve days. 

Dr. Kilgo : Do you remember the day you went into South Carolina? 

Mr. Beckwith: The night of the 15th. 

Dr. Kilgo: What day did you leave there? 

Mr. Beckwith : I think- on the 23d. 

Dr. Kilgo : That is not ten or twelve days. 

Mr. Beckwith : Well, somewhere, eight or ten days. 

Dr. Kilgo : Were you appointed as a deputy prosecutor to take depo- 
sitions or were you given the additional prerogative of a detective? 

Mr. Beckwith : I answer that by quoting from the instructions filed 
with me. They are as follows : 

[Here Mr. Beckwith read a letter from James H. South- 
gate authorizing him to take depositions.] 

[See letter, page 50.] 

Mr. Beckwith continuing : His reputation in South Carolina, that was 
my commission. 

Dr. Kilgo : To go to South Carolina to take the depositions of parties 
whose names had been iurnished you in North Carolina? 

Mr. Beckwith: I did. 

Dr. Kilgo : Did you furnish those names to the defense? 

Mr. Beckwith: I did. 



[ 57 J 

Dr. KiLGO : And those were the men that you went there to take dep- 
ositions of? 

Mr. Beckwith: Yes. sir. 

Dr. KiLGO : Did you have authority from this Board to take depositions 
from other men"? 

Mr. Beckwith : Additional authority to take any others that I might 



Dr. KiLGO : The question is did you have authority to take any you 
might suggest? I ask you the question: Were you authorized to take 
depositions of other parties outside of the names furnished you? 

Mr. Beckwith : I think so. 

Dr. KiLGO : Are you positive? 

Mr. Beckwith : As positive as I am that the English language carries 
the authority. 

Dr. KiLGO : Then you mean to say that you furnished the defense only 
a part of the names before you left North Carolina? 

Mr. Beckwith : I furnished every name that was furnished me. 

Dr. KiLGO: That's the point. Now were you ordered to take the 
depositions of other men? 

Mr. Beckwith : I shoud certainly have done so and served the notice 
upon you. 

Dr. KiLGO : You would have done that under your own will? 

Mr. Beckwith: Under the scope of this authority that I hold in my 
hand. 

Dr. KiLGO : You were in South Carolina eight days? 

Mr. Beckwith : Eight or ten days. 

Dr. KiLGO : Do you remember what you said in Mr. Kirby's office that 
afternoon of the court, just about the time we were finishing, about how 
lonesome you felt. 

Mr. Beckwith: Yes, sir, I was pretty lonesome there. 

Dr. KiLGO : Did you not put Mr, Jennings on the stand? Was not 
that a deposition? 

Mr. Beckwith : Yes, sir, but a very poor one. 

Dr. KiLGO : Do you recall what you said to me just outside of Wright's 
Hotel door? 

Mr. Beckwith: I think I might if you suggest. 

Dr. KiLGO: Did you not say, "I have gotten nothing so far?" 

Mr. Beckwith: I did. I had only one deposition at that time. 

Dr. KiLGO : Then if you got nothing in the legal deposition that was 
to come before this Board, why would you want to come here and say 
that you had gotten quite enough? 

Mr. Beckwith: I did not say that I came here with depositions. The 
question was asked if T knew j'^our reputation in South Carolina. 

Dr. KiLGO: You said you talked with fifty or seventy-five persons? 

Mr. Beckwith : I suppose so in all. 



[ 58 ] 

Dr. KiLGO : Did all of these men tell you that my reputation was that 
of a manipulator and a wire-puller? 

Mr. Beckwith ; The Governor of the State said that your reputation 
was as good as any man's. 

Dr. KiLGO: What did his Secretary say to you? 

Mr. Beckwith : That the Governor was at school with you and he 
would answer you. 

Dr. KiLGO : Was Mr. Clifton one of your witnesses? 

Mr. Beckwith : He was. 

Dr. KiLGO: What did he say? 

Mr. Beckwith : He declined positively to give a deposition. 

Dr. KiLGO : I say what does he say about his reputation? 

Mr. Beckwith: Doctor, I met Mr. Clifton on the train. He intro- 
duced himself to me and I told him who I was. He came up and spoke 
to me. I met him at the depot, and he came over and began a conversa- 
tion with me, and in the course of it said that his name was Clifton. 
We sat down and I told him why I was there, that I was there to 
investigate Dr. Kilgo's reputation in South Carolina. I put question to 
him after question and he declined to answer. I asked him if he had 
been to the Laurens Conference and if certain things took place there 
and he declined to answer. 

Dr. KiLGO : Did Mr. Clifton tell you that my reputation is what you 
say it is? 

Mr. Beckwith : He wrote a certificate which is filed yonder in which 
he said he never had known a more upright, Christian man. 

Dr. KiLGO: Didn't you leave Columbia just after I gave you a notice 
that I would take the deposition of Governor Ellerbee and Senator 
McLaurin? 

Mr. Beckwith: I did. 

Dr. KiLGO: You could have been there? 

Mr. Beckwith : Five minutes before the train, at which time I had 
made arrangements to go elsewhere. 

Dr. KiLGO : Where were you going? 

Mr. Beckwith: I went to Leesville to meet some gentlemen. 

Dr. KiLGO: What gentlemen? 

Mr. Beckwith : Rev. T. G. Hubbell and Prof. L. B. Hanes, the Presi- 
dent of Leesville Seminary. 

Dr. KiLGo : You went to see Mr. Hanes? 

Mr. Beckwith : Yes, Mr. Hanes and Mr. Hubbell. 

Dr. KiLGO : Why did you not tell the defense that you were going to 
see Mr. Hanes? 

Mr. Beckwith : Simply because I wished to see them before I said 
anything to you about it. 

Dr. KiLGO: Did you ever say anything to me about it? 

Mr. Beckwith : I did not. 



[ 59 ] 

Dr. KiLGO : Your judgment of my reputation was made up on con- 
sulting men when I was not present, had no notice, and when you 
intended I should not be present? 

Mr. Beckwith : I was forming my testimony by Dr. Kilgo's reputa- 
tion in South Carolina as a wire-puller. I was not taking depositions 
then. , 

Dr. KiLGO : I want this answered. You talked with men on this mat- 
ter when Dr. Kilgo wasn't present, and did not know that you were 
talking with them, and you said a while ago that you did not intend to 
let him know it. 

Mr. Beckwith : No, sir, I did not. 

Dr. K. Were Hanes and Hubbells among the number given you ? 

Mr. B They were not, and out of the number given me, seven or eight 
were not in the places where I expected to have met them. 

Dr. K. How many places did you visit in South Carolina to stop over 
and talk? 

Mr. B. Rock Hill, Greenwood and Spartanburg. 

Dr. K. How long in Greenwood? 

Mr. B. I think four or five hours. I stopped also at Abbeville, Colum- 
bia, Sumter and the excursion taken to Leesville. 

Dr. K. And you base your opinion on what jou heard these men say 
behind President Kilgo's back? 

Mr. B. Absolutely so. 

Dr. K. Gathered from those few places? 

Mr. B. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Do you know how you got to be appointed as deputy? 

Mr B. No information in the world en it. The first I knew of it the 
appointment was brought to me by Judge Clark. 

Dr. K. Do you know whether there was an attempt made to influence 
this court to appoint you? 

Mr. B. No information in the world on that. I presume it was done 
solely because I am a neighbor of Judge Clark, and am a graduate of 
the institution here, and a friend of the institution. 

Dr. K. And you recall distinctly saying to me in Columbia that you 
had nothing? 

Mr. B. I remember saying that I had a pretty lonesome trip, I had no 
means of compelling the attendance of witnesses. 

Dr. K. In law, is the word of a man good or worth anything when he 
talks behind another man's back and will not talk on the stand? 

Mr. B. Yes, sir, it goes to make up reputation. 

Mr. Bishop: In forming your opinion of his reputation, was the evi- 
dence you received in the formation of those opinions received from any 
man who would give his written evidence? 

Mr. Beckwith : These men said to me this : We decline to go into a 
matter of this kind, and if we were properlj^ subpoenaed we would 
answer. 



[ eo ] 

Mr. Bishop : The point I was after was, that no man gave testimony 
on which you had formed your opinion, who was willing to give testi- 
mony. You have the testimony of some that he is a wire-puller? 

Mr. Beckwith : Yes, sir. There are probably two taken at Sumter. 

Dr. Brooks : Will you tell us why you did not go with Dr. Kilgo to 
take the depositions of Governor Ellerbee and Senator McLaurin? 

Mr. Beckwith : Yes, sir, I had to reach the train. 

Dr. Brooks : Did you not feel that you should not take the depositions 
of these men? 

Mr. Beckwith: I said, "I am not dealing with a lot of thieves and 
scoundrels. Go on and deal as you please." And as I meant to be. 
Doctor, I am as cold-blooded as a frog in this matter. 

Dr. Kii,GO : I understood you to say you had depositions from other 
parties in Sumter. 

Mr. B. I think two. 

Dr. K. Did you give the defence any notice of them ? 

Mr. B. I had the name of only one man in Sumter. 

Dr. K. That is not the question. I want to know whether you gave 
the defence notice ? 

Mr. B. I did not. 

Dr. K. Did you know before you left Columbia that you would take 
those depositions ? 

Mr. B. I did not, but under the scope of power given me here, I thought 
it my duty to find the truth, and I proceeded to find it as best I could. 
Not knowing a man in the State when I went there, I had to walk up to 
some lawj'er and ask him to introduce me to the Methodist lawyers in the 
town, and they would introduce me to others. In the course of meeting 
these gentlemen, I talked with them, and in the course of the conversation 
I gathered what his reputation is. As to the character of those men, I 
was very cautious to go and ask another man, "What is the reputation of 
this or that man,'' and invariably I got the answer, "As well as any man 
in South Carolina." And upon that was based my testimony here. 

Judge Ci^ark: Dr. Kilgo asked you about your conversation between 
yourself and gentlemen. Will you please state that ? 

Dr. Kii,GO: I object. I asked him nothing about it. I was not asking 
him what he had to say. 

Judge CI/ARk: I ask the Chairman if he did not . . . 

Dr. K11.GO: I made that point on Mr. Clifton, because Mr. Beckwith 
had summoned me to take that deposition. He had not summoned me 
before Mr. Hanes or Mr. Hubble, and I object to his repeating hearsay 
testimony, when he admits that men would not state it in my presence. 

Dr. Creasy: I think the minutes will show the kind of evidence that 
was to be taken, and everything that was done and said shuts out all this 
sort of testimony. And yet this man goes around and finds what this 
man heard and that man heard. That is the record, and that would shut 
out all this, because it is purely hearsay, and Judge Clark would not 
accept such testimony. 

Mr. Ogi^EvSBy: There is no question, sir, in many minds here as to the 
kind of testimony upon which a man forms an opinion as to the general 



[ 61 ] 

character. I don't see that it is necessary for us to consume so much 
time over this question. The question has been asked: "Do you know 
the general character of this man in South Carolina?" He has answered 
it and he has explained the reason. I do not wish to be understood as. 
being thoroughly in sympathy with the idea of hunting the country over, 
picking up this and that item against a man, and yet the widest latitude 
was allowed to the prosecuting witness in getting up this testimony, and 
the prosecution had to avail himself of the advantages of it, I do not 
think it necessary for us to consume further time upon hearsay evidence. 
Of course he forms his conclusion from what he heard. You and I might 
have formed a different judgment, but that is his judgment 

Mr. Jurney: I hope we will not be delayed by any such foolishness as 
this. There is no man in this house but what knows that any court will 
not allow hearsay testimony on trial, and I hope you will go on with the 
proceedings. 

Judge CI.ARK: Suppose the depositions of A and B were taken, how did 
those men get their information ? They get it by what others have said. 
Now, he is in the exact position of those men. If you take B's deposition 
you could say, "What is the reputation of Dr. Kilgo?'" 

Mr. Jurney: Didn't Judge Clark know that if I want to find some one 
in North Carolina that said you were mean, I would not go to your State. 
I can find men in North Carolina that have something hard and harsh to 
say about any of you. You can get all sorts of- testimony. 

Dr. KiivGO: I wish to read you this: On the contrary, when the fact in 
controversy is one in which all the members of the community have not 
an interest, but those only who live in a particular district, or adventure 
in a particular enterprise, or the like, hearsay from persons wholly un- 
connected with the place or business would not only be of no value, but 
altogether inadmissable. Besides he gets his testimony after this matter 
has been raised and he goes and states it to them, and comes here and 
makes his statement on things that were made after the charges. Another 
important qualification . . . is that the declaration so received must have 
been made before any controversy arose. — Greenleaf on Evidence. 

The Secretary read resolutions passed at the last meeting. 

[See page 36.] 

Dr. Kii^Go: That's just where you miss it. This thing is not just now. 

Mr. Beckwith: I am not the little tow-head lawyer from Scotland. I 
did not come here unknown. I came here with some friends probably I 
don't have when I leave, but I came here at your command from a sub- 
poena to answer the questions put to me by the prosecution here under 
your authority. I have answered those questions in the light of what I 
gathered in South Carolina, an absolute stranger. I did not go hunting 
here and there, seeking his enemies or his friends. I had no intimation 
who were his friends and his enemies. I did not know whether he was 
a Holiness man or not. I did not know his friends in the South Carolina 
Conference. I did not know whether any of them were his enemies or 
not. I simply went there in the interest of truth, and thought that your 
commission was broad enough to go to the bottom of truth. I went there 
for the purpose of going to the bottom of this matter, in the interest of 
truth, and I defy any one to say that there is any one who loves it better 
than I. I don't care whether Dr. Kilgo stays here or goes, whether Judge 
Clark stays here or goes, it is a matter of absolute indifference to me. I 
obej'ed your order, as a Methodist and as a man, without fear, without 



[ 62 ] 

favor. If you want it I will give it to you. If not, I will sit down. I 
don't care one continental. If I represent the prosecutor of this court in 
South Carolina, then I conceive it to be my duty to find the truth. Did 
you want me to go there and come back with nothing ? If you want it, 
so help me God, I will give it to you. I am not here of my own volition, 
and if you don't want me, take my commission from me, and send me 
home. If you want what I know, and how I got it, then you can get it. 
I told Dr. Kilgo when I went there, I am cold-blooded as a frog. Now, 
gentlemen, if you want to know what I say, then go ahead. My com- 
mission is not a very private one. 

Judge CI.ARK: I ask what Mr. Hubble said ? 

Dr. Kii,GO: Did I understand you to rule that he is to tell what Mr. 
Hubble said? 

Mr. SouthgaTE: Yes, sir. 

Dr. Kilgo: I appeal from the chair. I make it on this ground, that 
the direct testimony has no right to call for that. I did not ask him of 
those witnesses that he summoned me before. There is a very great 
difference between those two things. 

Mr. SouTHGATE: He asked that question, Doctor, that any Trustee 
could ask a question. 

Dr. KiLGO! I object to it as an invalid question, a matter of hearsay, 
and I appeal -to th^ Board 

[The chair was overruled.] 

Mr. Boone^s Evidence, 

Mr, Oglesby: What is your full name? 

Mr. Boone: R. B. Boone. 

Mr. O. Where do you reside? 

Mr. B. In the town of Durham. 

Mr. O. How long have you been living in Durham? 

Mr. B. Sixteen or seventeen years, I suppose. 

Mr. O. Did you ever live in South Carolina? 

Mr. B. Yes, sir. 

Mr. O. Do you know the general reputation of Dr. John C. Kilgo? 

Mr. B. I can say that I know it only' from what was said to me in the 
city of Spartanburg. 

Dr. Kilgo: I object. Does he know my reputation? There is an ef- 
fort again at repeating "hearsay.'' 

Mr. OglESBy: Do you know his general reputation in the town of 
Spartanburg? 

Mr. B. If what people say about him is his general reputation. 

Dr. Kilgo: I insist that he say whether he knows my reputation or not. 

Mr. Boone: I know nothing of Dr. Kilgo except what I have heard. 
But as I understood it, the Board had ruled that you would not hear hear- 
say testimony. From what those people told me 

(Dr. Kilgo objected here.) 



[ 63 ] 

Mr. OgIvESBY : Do you know the general reputation of Dr. KiJgo in 
Spartanburg? 

Mr. B. I am lawyer enough to know that a man's reputation is what 
people say about him. 

Mr. O. Do you know his general reputation in Spartanburg? 

Mr. B. I should say I do? 

Mr.-O, What is it? 

Mr. B. It is not good, in the way of wire-pulling. 

Dr. Kir,GO: I object. 

Mr. Boone: I heard nothing against Dr. Kilgo. 

Dr. K11.GO: I object. 

Mr. Boone: From my own knowledge I did not know. 

Mr. OgIvESBY: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the witness answers, 
first, the question, "Do you know John C. Kilgo?" I do. "Do you know 
his general reputation?'' I understand you to say "I do.'' 

Mr. B. Yes, sir. 

Mr. O. Now I say, What is his general reputation? 

Mr. B. I found it to be that of a wire-puller and manipulator. That is 
what I found out. 

Dr Kii,GO: I object. I object to any testimony concerning Spartan- 
burg. 

Mr. B. I said I did not know it if what the people in Spartanburg told 
me isn't true. 

Mr. O. I should think that anything that could be proven from any 
part of South Carolina should be admitted 

Mr. Chairman: I should think the defense should have the right to 
ask the whole State, under those charges. 

Mr. B. I don't want the court to understand me to say I heard anybody 
outside of that town; but if what those people said there is true, his char- 
acter in South Carolina is that of a wire-puller. 

Dr KiivGO: You say you know positively the reputation of Dr. Kilgo 
in South Carolina? 

Mr. B. I have answered that question two or three times. 

Dr. K. But you have left in your testimony an "if." 

Mr, B. I know what your reputation is if what those men say is true. 

Dr. K. Tio you know what my reputation in South Carolina is? 

Mr. B. Nothing except what those men say. 

Dr. K. You just got those rumors? 

Mr. B. I can give you the parties' names. 

' Dr. K. How long since you left South Carolina as a resident? 

Mr. B. I suppose twenty-five or thirty years. 

Dr. K. You were in Spartanburg since this trouble began, since the 
i8th of July? 



[ 64 ] 

Mr. B. Yes, sir, or somewhere in the neighborhood of that. 

Dr. K. Was there an eflfort made to appoint you as a deputy? 

Mr. B I do not know, except what Mr. Southgate told me about Rox- 
boro. 

Dr. K. There was something said about your being appointed deputy 
to take depositions in Roxboro? 

Mr. B. Nothing except that he had agreed to appoint me. 

Dr. K. Did you know Dr. Kilgo when you resided in South Carolina? 

Mr. B. I did not. 

Judge CI/ARk: You said that Mr. Southgate agreed to appoint you, or 
had been asked to appoint you? 

Mr. Boone; He said that he had telegraphed Dr. Kilgo and that as 
soon as he could get an answer he would. I told him that I would take 
it and give the Doctor notice as soon as he gave me the power to do so. 
I went there and remained Wednesday night, but I had no power. 

Mr. Chairman: You said also that you could not do all the work. 

Mr. BOONK: Yes, sir, that I could not go to Caswell county. 

Dr. Kii,Go: Where were you educated? 

Mr. B. I have never had the fortune to be educated. What little I have 
I got by hard work at night. 

Dr. K. Where did you take your law course? 

Mr. B. At the University under Dr. Battle. But that was under him; 
there was no law school attached to the school. 

Mr, Gattis^s Evidence, 

Mr. GaTTis: Mr. President, may I be allowed to state my reason for be- 
ing here now? 

Mr. Southgate: I should think it would be in order for the question 
to be asked you by the prosecutor, however, if the defense has no objection, 
you may do so. 

Mr. GaTTIS: I would like to make the explanation beforehand. I wish 
to say that perhaps a month ago I was requested to be here as a witness 
and declined positively to do so. The matter was pressed upon me. I 
still declined, and stated that under no circumstance would I testify for 
either party, unless my Conference and Bishops should require it at my 
hands. I was informed a day or two ago that if I declined my name would 
be used here, and friends advised me to be here and hear what would be 
said I suppose that is suflficient. 

Mr. OgIvESBy: What is your name? 

Mr. GatTis: Thomas Jefferson Gattis. 

Mr. O. Where do you reside? 

Mr. G. In the town of Durham. 

Mr. O. Did you ever live in South Carolina? 

Mr. G. No, sir. 

Mr. O: Did you know John C. Kilgo, President of Trinity College? 

Mr. G. Yes, sir. 



[ 65 ] 



Mr. O. How long have you known him? 

Mr. G. I think five years. I am not positive, perhaps a little longer 
than that. I formed his acquaintance at Asheville, possibly six or seven 
years ago, in I891. 

Mr. O. Do you know his general reputation in South Carolina? 

Mr. G. I think so. 

Dr' Kii,Go: I wish you would answer that question positively, Mr. 
Gattis. 

Mr. G. Well, I know it. 

Mr. O. What is it? 

Mr. G, With regard to what, sir? 

Mr. O. I want to know his general character. 

Mr. G. For what, truth? 

Mr. O. For everything. 

Mr. G. For some things it is good, for others it is bad. 

Mr. O. He has been charged with being a wire-puller of the ward type, 
is that true? 

Mr. G. I have never heard that word "ward." Dr. Kilgo does have 
the reputation in South Carolina of being a wire-puller. 

Dr. K11.GO: You explained. Mr. Gattis, that you came here underpres- 
sure, pressure from what ? Who pressed you ? 

Mr. G. The prosecution. 

Dr. K. Mr. Oglesby ? 

Mr. G. No, sir; Judge Clark. 

Dr. K. You state that you were advised that your name would be used; 
who advised you as to that ? 

Mr. G. Two or three parties. 

Dr. K. Well, I want to know them. 

Mr. G. Judge Clark. 

Dr. K. Who are the others ? 

Mr. G. I don't feel that I should give them. 

Dr. K. Why, Mr. Gattis? 

Mr. G. I don't think it proper or necessary. 

Dr. K. Are they members of this Board? 

Mr. G. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Do they live in Durham ? 

Mr. G. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Have they anything to do with this court ? 

Mr. G. I decline to answer, Dr. Kilgo, any further questions in regard 
to that. 

Dr. K. I asked you a simple question, for I wish to know whether out- 
side parties have been working in this matter. This is an important ques- 



[ 66 ] 

tion and I call the attention of the Board to the fact that Mr. Gattis will 
not say whether they have any connection with this court or not. You 
still decline? 

Mr. G. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. You say you never lived in South Carolina? 

Mr. G. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Have you any business in South Carolina ? 

Mr. G. I have. 

Dr. K. What is it? 

Mr. G, I am appointed by the South Carolina Conference as Colporteur. 
Have been for three years. 

Dr. K. Did Dr. Kilgo go with you when you were appointed, and say 
something good to try to get you appointed? 

Mr. G. He went with me before I was appointed. 

Dr. K. But did he not try to help the brethren to understand you, and 
get you appointed to that position ? 

Mr. G. Dr. Kilgo was my friend, so far as I know. He said some good 
things for me on the Conference floor. 

Dr. K. And you have known him from '91? 

Mr. G. Well, sir, I was introduced to him in '91, and have not known 
him except when he came to North Carolina. 

Dr. K. When he came to North Carolina did he try to help you in your 
work ? 

Mr. G. I think so for a time. 

Dr. K. Did he not tell you of books, and make speeches on the Confer- 
ence floors for you? 

Mr. G. Yes, sir. 

Dr.K. Have you not talked a great deal about Dr. Kilgo in the last 
year or two? 

Mr. G. Not when I could well help it. 

Dr. K. Did you not say awhile ago that you understood that the Dukes 
were out with Dr. Kilgo ? 

Mr. G. I did not. 

Dr. K. Did not say you had ever heard it ? 

Mr. G. Yes, sir, I think I said I heard it. 

Dr. K. Did you say anything to Dr. Kilgo about it? 

Mr. G. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Have you not talked about him otherwise ? 

Mr. G. I do not remember, sir. 

Dr. K. Have you never talked with Judge Clark about him ? 

Mr. G. I had one conversation with him about several matters, and Dr, 
Kilgo was mentioned. 



[ 67 J 



Dr. K. Did you not tell Judge Clark about his bad reputation in South 
Carolina ? 

Mr G. I think it very likely that something was said of that kind. 

Dr. K, Now, Mr. Gattis, don't you know that you told Judge Clark 
that? 

Mr. G. I told him that I had no recollection of a single sentence that I 
expressed in regard to you. 

Dr. K. But did you not tell Judge Clark about his South Carolina repu- 
tation being that of a wire-pulling politician ? 

Mr. G. I am not able to answer that question. Whether I did or not, 
that certainly is his reputation. 

Dr. K. I ask you whether you did not tell Judge Clark that ? 

Mr. G. I decline to answer. 

Dr. K, But you say Judge Clark told you you must come here or he 
would use your name. Why did he. tell you that? 

Mr. G. I don't know, sir. 

Dr. K. You were not coming without his putting that pressure upon 
you? 

Mr. G. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Though you had talked to him about Dr. Kilgo ? 

Mr. G. Yes, sir, I had a conversation with him. 

Dr. K. Has not Dr. Kilgo quit going to your store ? 

Mr. G. I think he has. 

Dr. K. Do you know why he quit ? 

Mr. G. Yes, sir, I think I do. 

Dr. K. Have you talked with other people besides Judge Clark ? 

Mr. G. Yes, sir; you have been a general subject of conversation both 
in North and South Carolina. I have very frequently avoided conversa- 
tion about you. You are not quite of so much importance as that I want 
to talk about you all the time. 

Di . K. Have you not the reputation of talking too much about your 
brethren ? 

Mr. G. I don't know, sir. 

Dr. K. Isn't it your habit to talk about your brethren ? 

Mr. G. I am not here to be questioned ^bout those things ; at least to 
answer them. 

Dr. K. Haven't you frequently brought very kind messages to Dr. 
Kilgo from South Carolina ? 

Mr. G. Occasionally, yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Told him of his friends ? 

Mr. G. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Did you ever tell him that was his reputation ? 

Mr. G. No, sir. 



[ 68 ] _ 

Dr. K. To the Presiding Elder ? 

Mr. G. No, sir. 

Dr. K. To his pastor ? 

Mr. G. I don't remember. 

Dr. K. So you have no recollection now of telling it to anybody but 
Judge Clark ? 

Mr. G. I decline to answer. 

Dr. K. Do you suppose that Judge Clark would have ever made the 
statement that you made, unless you had had the conversation with him 
that you had ? 

Mr. G. I decline to answer. 

Dr. K. Did Judge Clark go to see you the other day ? 

Mr. G. I decline to answer that. 

Dr. K. Why do you decline ? 

Mr. G. Because I don't think you have any right to ask those questions. 

Dr. K. Wasn't your son in Trinity, a while ago ? 

Mr. G. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Did the College charge him any tuition ? 

Mr. G. No, sir. 

Judge Ci^ark: How long did you travel in South Carolina as Colporteur? 

Mr. G. This is the third year. 

Judge Ci^ark: Did your business take you into all parts of the State? 

Mr. G. In nearly all of the large towns. 

Judge CIvARk: You know personally nearly all our ministers down 
there ? 

Mr. G. Nearly all of them. 

Judge Ci^ark: Do you know the leading laymen ? 

Mr. G. A good many of them. 

Judge Ci/ARK : I want to ask Mr. Gattis one question. Do you know 
the reputation of Mr. T. C. Ivigon, of the South Carolina Conference ? 

Mr. G. Yes, sir. 

Judge Ci,ark: Well, what is it ? 

Mr. G. Very good indeed, so far as I know. 

[Here Judge Clark sought to introduce John R. Webster, 

of Reidsville.] 

Judge Clark: This witness is brought here to prove the record of Dr. 
Kilgo and he has been brought here to testify to a lecture of his in Rock- 
ingham county, in which Dr. Kilgo said: "In looking for some things 
you do not go into the dark corners of the State but to the institutions of 
learning,'' etc. 

Dr. Kilgo: I object, Mr. President, to the examination of the witness. 



[ 69 J 

Mr, Ogi^ESBy: To be perfectly fair in this matter, I asked him for an 
interview and told him I was prosecutor. I asked him what he was here 
to testify to, and he said I don't know what Judge Clark wants me to 
testify to; I refer you to him. I do not see how we can introduce his 
testimony under the specifications. I am ready to introduce every wit- 
ness who knows anything bearing on those specifications. Anything 
outside of that is not in court and I cannot with fairness to all introduce 
a witness to testify to things that do not come within the range of the bill 
of indictment. If he knows anything bearing on the case I am willing to 
introduce it. 

Judge CI.ARK: I said he was unfit, in my judgment, but the majority 
of the Board seemed to be of a different opinion. I think Mr. Webster's 
testimony is competent to prove that fact. 

Mr. OgIvESBY: You can see, brethren, how the prosecutor is in a meas- 
ure hampered in this matter, because of certain facts which Judge Clark 
has kept away from me. Here is a witness and I have not been able to 
find out why he was summoned. You see why I have been awkward. I 
have never been furnished a list of the witnesses nor a single regularly 
taken deposition by an assistant prosecutor or by Judge Clark. I am 
simply-doing the best I can — running on in the dark. I do not say this 
to prejudice you against the assistant prosecutor or against Judge Clark, 
or against anybody else. 

[Here Mr. Beckwith protested that the depositions had 
been sent regularly by express to the Chairman.] 

Mr. OgIvESBy: There is no complaint as to that. I do not accuse you 
of wrong. Yet as the regularly appointed prosecutor I have not been 
given the names. 

Judge CIvARk: Do I understand that Mr. Webster's testimony goes out? 

Mr. OgIvESBy: I will put him on the stand if he has evidence in regard 
to specifications. 

[Here the specifications were read.] 

Mr. Ogi^ESBy: My information is very limited as to what Mr. Webster 
knows about this matter. 

[Mr. Webster here was stood aside.] 

Mr. Oglesby called for reading of deposition of Mr. T. C. Ligon, of 
South Carolina. 

Mr. Chairman here stated that in a case like this it was usual for the 
prosecutor to take charge of depositions. They should remain with the 
Chairman of the Board. You will find that these packages are unbroken 
They were kept so by agreement until they could be opened in the pres. 
ence of the prosecution and the defence. 

Mr. Oglesby: The prosecutor is supposed to prove certain charges by 
a witness on the stand. I certainly should not introduce a deposition 
here, if I could avoid it, if that deposition was seriously against me. I 
should know what is to be proved by the witness and whether I want his 
testimony at all or not. I make this statement in simple justice to 
myself. 

[Here the point was made that the personal witnesses be 
examined first and that the depositions be taken up after- 
wards.] 

5 



[ 70 ] 
Mr. CounciVs Evidence. 

Mr. OglESBY • What is your full name ? 
Ans. Z. P. Council. 

Ques. Where do you live ? 
Ans. In Durham, N. C. 

Ques. What is your occupation ? 
Ans. Printer. 

Ques. Were you once reporter for the Durham Sun ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Ques. Did you report Dr. Kilgo's speech on Mr. Duke's porch in the 
first days of June ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Ques Did you report him correctly ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Ques. Tell the Board what Dr. Kilg^o said. 

Ans. I don't remember the words. Here is a copy I made: Dr. Kilgo 
said, "The first white child was born in North Carolina, the first Declara- 
tion of Independence was signed in North Carolina, the first blood shed 
of the civil war and present war was shed by a North Carolinian, but 
greater than these the greatest philanthropist of the South is a North 
Carolinian." 

Ques. You testify that is the exact language ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K11.G0: Mr. Council, do you think Dr. Kilgo's spirit on that occa- 
sion was an "afiluence of sycophancy ?" 
Ans. No, sir. 

Dr. Kilgo: Did you hear him say that Mr. W. Duke is the greatest 
man the State has ever produced a-nd as superior to all the sacrifices of 
blood and treasure the State had made — that in comparison with his gift 
of money, etc. ; did you hear him say that ? 

Ans. I did not hear those words. 

Dr. Kilgo : Did he impress you that he was trying to say such a thing? 
Ans. Not at all. 

Dr. Kilgo: Was he called out to speak by the student body, or did he 
speak as part of the program ? 

Ans. There seemed to be a call from those present. 

Dr. Kilgo: Did he speak as if he was uttering a prepared speech or 
just in the jubilancy of the hour? 

Ans. He spoke more like it was an impromptu speech. 

Dr. Kilgo: Did you intend to report him as committing a very serious 
crime in his speech ? 

Ans. No, sir; my intention was to speak well of Mr. Duke's liberality. 

Dr. Kilgo: Did you intend to make the impression that is made here? 
(Refers to newspaper containing Judge Clark's charges.) 
Ans. No, sir. 

Judge Clark: Do you recollect any other language- that he used on 
that occasion ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Judge Clark: What was it ? 



[ 71 J 

Ans, I have it here: This (meaning Mr. W, Duke's house) is the Presi- 
dent's house. We are just permitting Mr. Duke to use it a while. Over 
there on Chapel Hill street (pointing to Mr. B. N. Duke's residence) is 
the house of a member of the faculty, and there (pointing to Duke's 
factory) is our industry, and we have a bank down town. 

Judge CI/ARk: You say in substance he said that on that occasion ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Dr. Kii,Go: Object to this as being irrelevant* 

Mr. Chairman: What is the charge ? 

Mr. Ogi^esby: It is an affluence of sycophancy and lording Mr. Duke. 

Dr. Kii<GO: The charge is in reference to the letter of Judge Clark and 
what he says in that letter about my speech at Mr. Duke's. Here is your 
charge. (Reads the charge. See p. 50). Now, sir, I have read that. I 
have cross-examined on that. Now it is attempted to bring in a matter 
that is not in that letter, that never appeared in the public print. It is 
irrelevant. 

Mr. Ogi^KSBy: The statement there would include all that he said in 
his speech. If what he said in his speech amounts to sycophancy, then 
it is relevant. 

Dr. KiiyGo: Your charge here reads very plainly. (Reads the charge). 
Do you intend charges Mr. Council was making ? 

Mr. Ogi^esby: We mean what Dr. Kilgo actually said on Mr. Duke's 
porch that night. It is .for the Board to say whether that amounts to 
sycophancy. 

Dr. Brooks: Did you write that down at the time or since then ? 

Mr. CouNCii,: I wrote that since then from memory. 

Mr. Jurney: There were a number of us present that night. 

Dr. Kii,GO: I ask you to rule on the relevancy of that testimony. 

Judge Clark: I did not restrict myself to saying that the speech was 
printed. I said he made a speech of a certain tenor, and you all must 
say whether it was of that tenor, and how can you do it by getting half 
the speech ? 

Mr. Chairman: It is fair that the witness be allowed to state what was 
said on the occasion. 

Dr. Kii,Go: Did you take that down in short-hand the night it was 
made ? 

Mr. CouNCiiv: No, sir. 

Dr. KiLGO: When did you write it down? 
Ans. Some time ago. 

Dr. KiLGo: Something like two weeks ? 

Ans. More than that — about the first of August. 

Dr. K11.G0: Since the i8th of July? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Dr. KiXGO: Can you say positively that's just what he said? 
Ans. No, sir; I said that is my recollection in substance. 

Dr. Kilgo: What do you think he meant by a statement of that sort? 
Ans. I thought he meant it to be humorous. 



[ 72 ] 

Dr. Kir,Go: You did not think that he meant to say that Trinity Col- 
lege had bought the cigarette factory and owned the- whole concern ? 
Ans. No, sir; I thought it to be humorous. 

Dr. K11.G0: How did you come to write that? Were you requested to 
write it ? 

Ans. Yes, sir, by Mr. Bryant. 

Dr. KiivGO: Which one^ 
Ans. Victor Bryant.- 

Dr. Kii^Go: Where does he live? 
Ans. In Durham. 

Dr. K11.G0: Did he say what he wanted with it? 

Ans. Yes, sir. He asked me would I swear to it, and I said I would— 
that they were the words in substance. 

Dr. KiLGO: Did Mr. Bryant tell you he was having you do this for 
some one else ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K11.G0: For whom? 
Ans. For Judge Clark. 

Judge Clark: You say that as to the first part you are positive, but 
that as to the other you are not ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Dr. KiivGO: The first part you took down in shorthand that night ? 
Ans. No, sir, in long hand. 

Dr, Kii,GO: Can you write as fast as a man can speak? 
Ans. Not altogether. 

Dr. KiLGo: Was there a great deal of noise around there? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Dr. Peacock: How close were you to the speaker? 
Ans. I don't know. I paid no special attention to the distance. I was 
as close as I could get to hear him. 

Mr.OGi.ESBY: I will ask the Secretary to read the deposition of Rev. 
T. C. Ligon, of the South Carolina Conference. 

[Dr. Kilgo objects to the questions Mr. Beckwith asked Mr. Ligon, on 
the ground that they referred to specific rumors, J^e considered the 
whole thing hearsay.] 

Rev, T, C. I/igon^s Deposition, 

Mr. Ligon was then examined and cross-examined, and 
testified as follows: 

Mr. Beckwith : You reside where? 

Mr. Ligon : In Rock Hill. 

Mr. B. Your business? 

Mr. L. Member of the South Carolina Conference. 

Mr. B. How long have you been a member of the Conference? 

Mr. L. Since December, 1895. 



[ 73 ] 

Mr. B. Do you know Dr. John C. Kilgo? 

Mr. L Yes, sir. 

Mr. B. How long have you known him? 

Mr. L. r knew of him before that time, and have been acquainted 
with him about that time, or a little after. 

Mr. B. Do you know what his general character is among his brethren 
in the Conference? 

Mr. L. I could not say that I know what his character is generally. 

Mr. B. Well, you know what B, C, and D say of him? 

Mr. L. His moral character is good, but some of the brethren did be- 
lieve that he was somewhat of a manipulator. That is, that he was not 
mean or low, but that he would use his influence to control things. I 
don't say that is the opinion of the majority, but it is the opinion of 
some. 

Mr. B. Of a great many in the Conference? 

Mr. L. I can't say. 

Mr. B. Was there a current report that Dr. Kilgo joined with Dr. 
Wilson and others for the purpose of controlling the affairs of the 
Annual and District Conferences, etc. ? 

Mr. L. I could not say that there was any combination, but it was an 
opinion that there was an understanding between them of some sort. I 
don't know that 1 ever heard. 

Mr. B. Anybodj^ said that there was an understanding, but there was 
a current opinion that there was? 

Mr. L. Yes, sir. I would put it in this way, brethren, that this seemed 
to be the opinion of a great many. 

Mr. B. That the Doctor was skillful in manipulating Conference 
affairs? 

Mr. L. Well, I have heard people go so far as to call it a ring. I don't 
know whether it was a ring "or not. I have heard it spoken of as an 
understanding. 

Mr. B. They even call it a ring? 

Mr. L. Yes, sir. 

Mr. B. Do you recollect any peculiar instances as to when and where 
anything of this kind was done? 

Mr. L. Yes, I can give you a few instances, but not authoritatively. 
I heard that at. the Laurens Conference Bro. W. C. Power said to Bro. 
Wilson that he could not vote for him as Editor of the Advocate, on the 
ground that he and Kirkland and Kilgo had gone into a combination to 
carry things in the Conference their own way, to elect him Editor of 
the Advocate, and that Bro. Wilson replied to him. Bro. Wilson denied 
that there was a combination, but that there was some understanding. 

[Dr. Kilgo took exception to this upon the grounds that it was hearsay.] 

Mr. B. Go on and relate any circumstances that occur to you in this 
matter. 

Mr. L. In 1894 the Columbia District Conference met at Leesville, and 
Bro. Kilgo and Bro. Dargan were there, Dargan representing the Colum- 



[ 74 ] 

bia Female College, and Dr. Kilgo Wofford College. They both attended 
the District Conference, and in placing the delegates, I placed them 
together and they were to occupy the same room, and same bed, per- 
haps, and somebody came to me (I think it was Prof. Hanes) and told 
me that Dargan was not going to stay at the Conference if he had to 
stay with Kilgo. Said that Dargan and Kilgo were out, and I am not 
sure but what Hanes said that Dargan and Kilgo were not speaking ; 
and I enquired further, and he told me that he and Dr. Kilgo had had 
a fuss; that Dargan had said that Kilgo at one time had gone around to 
the Conferences the year before, and said how he managed to have the 
delegates to the Annual Conference put in right, and managed things to 
get the delegates elected to the Annual Conference. Kilgo heard about 
it and took Dargan up about it, and Kilgo denied it. That is the sub- 
stance of what was told me, and I said it would never do to put them 
together, and I took Dr. Kilgo down to my house to breakfast Dr. 
Kilgo told me when he came that he was not going to stay over night, 
but would only be there to dinner. 

Mr. B. Do you know anything as to any feeling that was aroused by 
Dr. Kilgo 's coming back to Conference soon after being elected Presi- 
dent of Trinity College, and as to the charge of manipulating boards for 
the Conference, and that he, not being a member of the Conference, 
except not having received his transfer? 

Mr. L. Yes, sir, Dr. Kilgo came to the Laurens Conference, and 
stayed tnere and worked very earnestly for certain parties, and when 
the election was over he left and went back home, with his transfer, 
which was announced at that Conference. 

Mr. B. And that after his election to the Presidency of Trinity College? 

Mr. L. Yes, sir, and Bro. Rufus Hill, who before that was a very 
strong friend of Dr. Kilgo's . . . 

[Dr. Kilgo protested here.] 

Mr. L. Mr. Hill told me that as Mr. Kilgo came out of the Conference 
room he said: "Well, we have just broken up a little ten cent ring that 
was trying to run things," and the feeling among a great many of the 
brethren was that Bro. Kilgo had not acted fairly in coming back to the 
Conference after he had left. The feeling seemed to be that it was 
unfair. 

Mr. B. Do you recall any further instances in which Dr. Kilgo was' 
unusually active, so much so. that his brethren complained at his activity 
and manipulation of affairs? 

Mr. L. A brother told me . . . 

[Dr. Kilgo again objected here.] 

Mr. L. A certain member of the Conference, I think it was a preacher, 
gave me this information : Said that he saw a letter written by Dr. 
Kirkland to a member of the Advocate Publishing Committee, in which 
he said that if he resigned the Editorship of the Advocate, as he had 
been elected to the Editorship of the Sunday schoul Literature, that he 
trusted they would put in either John C. Kilgo or John O. Wilson, and 
I do not know whether it was true or not, and I knew that Bro. Brab- 
ham had been with Bro. Porter that afternoon, the same day that 1 got 
this information, and I asked Bro Porter what that letter that M. M. 
Brabham received from Kirkland contained, and he did not want to tell 
me. and I told him what I heard, and he said: "Don't ask me. Bro. 
Brabham showed me that letter in private, and I said that the church 



[ 75 ] 

wanted to know whether he had seen such a letter. I heard that he had 
written to two of the committee, and just after the Laurens Confer- 
ence there was a great deal of feeling among a large number of the 
brethren, against Dr Kilgo, about the part he took in the election." 

Mr. B Based upon all that, you have heard from the different mem- 
bers of the Conference ; what is your opinion of Dr. Kilgo's character as 
a manipulator and wire-puller? 

Mr. L. I can only state as to those brethren, from the action cf Dr. 
Kilgo on the :floor. Of course I heard nothing said, but it was the 
opinion of a large number that he was taking an active part in the elec- 
tion of the Conference, especially in the election to the Advocate, and I 
must say. as to my own opinion, I think it was the same way. I know 
nothing about him since he left here to go to Trinity. I had nothing to 
do with the election myself. Don't know that I ever told a human 
being how I voted. I took no part in it I said nothing as to whom I 
should vote for. I think it was presumed that I was not going to vote 
for Dr. Wilson. And I suppose nobody bothered me on that account. 
Dr. Kilgo never said anything to me personally. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

Dr. Kilgo: Bro. Ligon, do you know Judge Walter Clark, of North 
Carolina ? 

Mr. Ligon: No, sir; only by reputation. 

Dr. K. What about his reputation ? 

Mr. L. I don't know a thing about him. In fact, I don't know that I 
ever heard his name mentioned till I read this. I heard several talking 
about this trouble. 

Dr. K. Have you ever had any correspondence with him ? 

Mr. L. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Any conference ? 

Mr. L- No, sir. 

Dr. K, Do you know how you got to be a witness in this ? 

Mr. L. No. sir. 

Dr. K, Don't know who gave your name? 

Mr. L. No, sir. 

Dr. K. You say that Dr. Kilgo's character was good? 

Mr. L. Moral character was good. 

Dr. K. Was his character ever arrested in the Conference? 

Mr. L. Not that I heard of. 

Dr. K. Did you ever hear of any complaint in the Conference ? 

Mr. L. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Well, if his moral character was good, then I don't think that 
his manipulating was wrong ? 

Mr. L Well, I spoke in reference to moral character. I did not mean 
with reference to his oflBcial character in the Conference. I have seen a 
great many men of good moral character who were in politics. 



[ 76 ] 

Dr. K. You state testimony positively, that the reputation which he 
had in South Carolina was that of a politician, and the type of a ward 
politician ? 

Mr. Iv. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Well, was that his reputation ? 

Mr. L. Well, I do not like to use that strong language, because that is 
language that sometimes means very low and dirty things. 

Dr. K. I want to know whether you will say that? 

Mr. Iv. No, not in that sense, that it was immoral or low. 

Dr. K. So that when you mean that he manipulated affairs, do you 
mean to say that he had his choice among men, and that that was the 
thing that ought to be done, and used his influence for that end ? 

Mr. L. Well, the opinion of those who expressed themselves is, that 
you went too far in those things, and did in a manner in which a Christian 
man should not do. 

Dr. K. So that his moral character was involved ? 

Mr. L. If you call that moral character. 

Dr. K. Now you say that his reputation was that of a manipulator and 
wire-puller in Conference matters. What do you mean by reputation, 
Bro Ligon ? 

Mr. L. I mean his reputation among some of his brethren. 

Dr. K. That is not the question. Do you mean to say that the majority 
of the South Carolina Conference held that opinion ? 

Mr. h. I could not tell you about the majority. 

Dr. K. About how many men did you talk to ? 

Mr. h. A good many. 

Dr. K. Two dozen ? 

Mr. h. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Three dozen ? 

Mr. ly. Yes, possibly more than that. 

Dr K. I want to get at something positive. Do you reckon you talked 
with fifty ? 

Mr. L. Well, I don't know about that. Possibly, altogether, but I 
don't know whether they were all members of the Conference. 

Dr. K. Well, all were of the same opinion ? 

Mr. Iv. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Well, was Dr. Kilgo at that time a member of the South Caro- 
lina Conference ? 

Mr. L. You mean at the Laurens Conference ? 

Dr. K. Yes, was he a member of that Conference ? 

Mr. ly. Yes,. he was transferred during the Conference, because part of 
the Conference he was a member and part he was not. 

Dr. K. Did his membership give him the same right that yours gives 
you? 

Mr. L. Yes, up to that time, of course. 



[ 77 ] 

Dr. K. Was there any other membership that he had ? 

Mr. L. Well, he had been elected to the Presidency of Trinity College, 
and was practically out of our Conference. 

Dr. K. The question is whether he was a member of that Conference ? 

Mr. L. He was a member and had the legal rights of a member. 

Dr. K. Well, is there any other right? 

Mr. L/. There is no other legal right, of course. 

Dr. K. And you put what you put down there as your positive evidence 
concerning all these matters ? 

Mr. L. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Do I understand that you stand responsible for all the state- 
ments of Mr. Hill and others ? 

Mr. Iv. No, sir. 

Dr. K, You would not take an oath on those statements ? 

Mr. L. Well, as far as a man could on another man's statements. 

Dr. K. And you would take an oath that that is the truth ? 

Mr. L. I could not say that I could take an oath that that is true. 

Dr. K. If you do not know anything about it, and could not swear it to 
be a fact, why give it any value at all ? 

Mr. Iv. Because Mr. Hill is an honorable man. 

Dr. K. Is there opportunity for him to be mistaken ? 

Mr. L. I don't suppose he is infallible. 

Dr. K. You spoke about a ring, and that Dr. Kilgo wounded the feel- 
ings of his brethren by his actions. Did those brethren want to elect Dr. 
Wilson Editor of the Advocate. 

Mr. Iv. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Whom did they want to elect ? 

Mr. L. Well, I can't tell you whom, sir. I have my opinion. It is 
that they wanted J. W. Daniel. 

Dr. K. Did you hear a great deal about his being elected to the Advo- 
cate ? 

Mr. L. Not a great deal. Only at the Conference I heard a great deal. 

Dr. K. And his friends were sorry when he was not elected ? 

Mr. L. Yes, sir; you might say that, too. 

Dr. K. And then they blamed Dr. Wilson for his defeat ? 

Mr. L. Largely; yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Did you hear something about Mr. Daniel's being elected to the 
Advocate before Conference ? 

Mr. L. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Was there not an effort made to elect Mr, Daniel at the Sumter 
Conference ? 

Mr. L. Yes, sir. 



[ 78 ] 

Dr. K. Good many men moved to do that, did they not? 

Mr. L. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Was there not considerable talk around Conference of putting 
him in place of Mr. Kirkland ? 

Mr. ly. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. At the last Conference was there not considerable effort made 
to elect Mr. Daniel Editor ? 

Mr. L. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Was there a great deal said before Conference about his election ? 

Mr. Iv. Yes, sir, I suppose so. On several occasions I heard some talk 
of it. 

Dr. K. Well, this matter about Mr. Dargan and President Kilgo, are 
you positive that those are the statements which Mr. Hanes made to you ? 

Mr. ly. I don't say Mr. Hanes was the man; but they are the positive 
statements. 

Dr. K. And those that you would testify to on oath? 

Mr. Iv. Yes, sir. I don't say that Mr. Hanes said that; I think he was 
the man. 

Dr. K. That Mr. Dargan would not stay with me ? 

Mr. Iv. Well, that it would not be pleasant. 

Dr. K. Brother Ligon, you say that President Kilgo worked very hard 
for parties at the District Conferences? 

Mr. Iv. No, sir, not that. I said that I heard that was the cause of the 
difficulty. 

Dr. K. Did Dr. Kilgo ever ask you to vote for him ? 

Mr. Iv. No, sir. 

Dr. R. You are positive that he left Laurens on Saturday ? 

Mr. h- I don't know, sir, whether he left there on Saturday or not- He 
may have left there Monday. I don't know what day the election was. 

Di". K. If he left there Monday at 12 o'clock, did the Conference ad- 
journ Monday night ? 

Mr. L. I think so. 

Dr. K. So he was there till the close ? 

Mr. L. Yes, sir; I think President Kilgo left on Saturday. 

Dr. K. I want you to be positive about that, Brother Ligon. 

Mr. L. I am going to tell you what I believe. 

Dr. K. You say you all ihought it unfair for him to come back to that 
Conference? What do you base it upon ? 

Mr. L. That he had been elected President of Trinity College, in an- 
other Conference, and had accepted, and been out of the Conference ever 
since he took charge of the College, and that with this should have ceased 
his connections. 

Dr. K. Is it unfair for a member of the Conference to go to the Con' 
ference ? 

Mr. L. No, sir. 



[ 79 J 

Dr. K. Does the law of the Conference require him to go ? 

Mr. L. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Then where does that unfairness come in? 

Mr. L. My opinion is that you had practically changed your relation- 
ship. 

Dr. K. Those men who thought it unfair for me to return to Confer* 
ence, were they not men who generally supported Mr. Daniel ? 

Mr. ly. Yes, sir, I suppose so. 

Dr. K. Did you support him ? 

Mr. L. No, sir; I voted for him, but did not take any part in the elec- 
tion. 

Dr. K. Would you have been glad to see him elected ? 

Mr. Iv. I will not say that. 

Dr. K. You did not talk with members about Mr. Daniels superiority 
for an editor over Mr. Wilson ? 

Mr. L. I might have done so, but I don't have any recollection of it. 

Dr. K. If you never talked about it, how did you come to know that 
folks were talking about him for the Advocate ? 

Mr. L. Well, after the Conference anybody could see that the issue in 
the Conference was the election of the Advocate. 

Dr. K. So you did not hear anybody say that Dr. Kilgo tried to influ- 
ence them in the election ? 

Mr. L. 

Dr. K. And you supposed, then, that that was what he was doing ? 

Mr. Iv. Yes, sir; there was a good deal of that work done. 

Dr. K. When you saw him button-hole a man, you supposed that was 
what he was doing ? * 

Mr. L. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. You did not know it, you just supposed it ? 

Mr. L. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. You say you got interested in a letter which Dr. Kirkland wrote 
to an unknown party ? Who was that party, Mr. Ligon ? 

Mr. L. It was one of the Advocate committee. 

Dr. K. You don't know him ? 

Mr. Iv. O, yes; Mr. Beatty was one, and Mr. Brabham and Mr. Evans. 

Dr. K. To which one was this letter written ? 

Mr. L. To Mr. Beatty. 

Dr. K And because Mr. Kirkland wrote a letter to Mr. Beatty, you 
concluded, therefore, that President Kilgo was wire pulling for Dr. 
Wilson ? 

Mr. Iv. Well, Doctor, it was supposed by a great many that that was 
the case. 

Dr. K. Just a supposition ? 

Mr. L. Yes. sir. 



[ 80 ] 

Dr. K. Well, do you think Dr. Kilgo ought to be held responsible for 
anything Dr. Kirkland did ? 

Mr. Iv, No, sir, unless he was connected with him. 

Dr. K. Can you say positively that he was a party to it ? 

Mr. L. No, sir, not of my own knowledge. 

• Dr. K. Do you know how Dr. Kilgo voted in the Advocate election ? 

Mr. Iv. No, sir. Judging from those statements of Mr. Hill's, I inferred 
that he voted that way. 

Dr. K. Brother Ligon, did you and any of your Presiding Elders ever 
have any friction or trouble ? 

Mr. L. None that I remember. 

Dr. K. How about Brother Power, in your arresting his character in 
Charleston ? 

Mr. Iv. Well, I thought he had rings to meet, and did with Brother 
Power. 

Dr. K. That is, you brought such charges against him ? 

Mr. I/. No charges, but complaint. 

Dr. K. Are you a member of the Holiness Association ? 

Mr. L. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Any official relation ? 

Mr. Iv. Yes, sir. President of the Association. 

Dr. K. What is the organ of that Association ? 

Mr. Iv. We have none. 

Dr. K. Which does it generally recognize as standing for it ? 

Mr. Iv. None. 

Dr. K. Does y«ur Association sympathize with the Way of Faith? 

Mr. I/. Yes, our sympathies are that way to some extent. The two 
have no connection at all. 

Dr. K. You profess, then, the blessing of entire sanctification, accord- 
ing to the Second Blessing teaching ? 

Mr. Iv. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Does Mr. Daniel profess that blessing ? 

Mr. L He has, but I can't tell you whether he does now. 

Dr. K. You know that he has been a professor of it? 

Mr. Iv. Yes, sir. He does not belong to the Association and has never 
attended a meeting. 

Dr. K. Is Dr. Wilson a Second Blessing man ? 

Mr. L. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Is Dr. Kilgo ? 

Mr. Iv. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Well, when he was in this Conference, was it not generally re- 
cognized that Dr. Kilgo ^yas opposed to, and preached against, that doc- 
trine ? 



again 


3t It 


Dr. 


K. 


Mr. 


L. 


Dr. 


K. 


Mr 


I.. 


Dr. 


K. 



[ 81 ] 

Mr. L. Well, I can't say that he preached against it, but that he op- 
posed it. I don't know that I ever heard of his preaching a sermon 

Was Dr. Kirkland a Second Blessing man ? 

He wrote a very strong article once favoring it. 

Did he profess it ? 

I don't know whether you take it as a profession or not. 

Hasn't there been a great deal of friction between the Second 
Blessing men and those who do not profess it ? 

Mr. L- I don't think so. Of course Dr. Kirkland wrote some very bit- 
ter articles against it. 

Dr. K. Have you not written some yourself against the other side ? 

Mr. L. No, sir; you can't find a thing in the papers over my signature 
in the last seven years, except, perhaps, a report of my circuit work. 

Dr. K. According to your statement, there is a great deal of suspicion 
as to Dr. Kilgo's attitude in regard to these matters, and, so far as you 
know, it does not amount to anything but supposition ? 

Mr. I/. So far as my own personal knowledge. 

Dr. K. Do you know, Mr. Ligon, that there is a rumor in your Confer- 
ence now that there is a ring formed out of these men that you supposed 
to be the opposition to Dr. Kilgo and Dr. Wilson ? 

Mr. L- No, sir. 

Dr. K. Did not Bishop Duncan say a great deal in his lecture at the 
last Conference about it ? You never heard anything of a ring ? 

Mr. L. Bishop Duncan, in his opening address, referred to parties 
making charges as to his coming back here to preside over the last Con- 
ference, and went on to explain how he came to be appointed to preside, 
and said that is the reason and not the other one. And as to the other 
one, I know nothing. 

Dr. K. Don't you think a Conference in a bad fix when a Bishop of the 
church must come to explain how he came to save himself against reports 
of rings and trickery ? 

Mr. L- Well, abstractly it might be so. I do not propose to say that 
our Conference is in a bad fix because the Bishop came there. I don't 
know what his motives were. In fact, I was astonished. I hear very 
little objection to his coming there after he made those statements. 

Dr. K. If the election for the Advocate was up to-morrow, would you 
vote for Dr. Wilson ? 

Mr. Iv. Well, if nobody else was running that I would prefer. 

Dr. K. Then you do not think it a sin to prefer somebody else ? 

Mr. L. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Do you think it a wrong for a man to say so, when he thinks 
this man is the best man for the place ? 

Mr. L. No, unless you carry it too far. 



[ 82 ] 

RE-DIRECT. 

Mr. BeckwiTh: Was there a sense of relief that Di. Kilgo had been 
transferred from this Conference to another ? 

Mr. L. Yes, sir, I believe there was. 

Mr. B. And upon the grounds as suggested above ? 

Mr. L. Yes, sir. 

Dr KiivGO: That sense of relief was felt among the same people who 
opposed Mr. Wilson ? 

Mr. L. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Do you think that Dr. Kilgo would not be welcomed back to 
the South Carolina Conference ? 

Mr. L. There might be some who would welcome him back. 
Dr, K. How about the majority of the Conference? 
Mr. Iv. I suppose they would welcome him back. 

(Signed) T. C. LiGON. 

Mr, Jennings^ s Deposition, 

Mr. Jennings, being duly sworn, was placed upon the 
stand and testified as follows: 

Mr. Beckwith: Will you please give us, your full name? 

Mr. Jennings: John Kelly Jennings. 

Mr. B. What is your business? 

Mr. J. I am a lawyer. 

Mr. B. Have you any connection with Wofford College? 

Mr. J. I am a member of the Board of Trustees, and also Secretary. 

Mr. B. Do you know Dr? Kilgo? 

Mr. J. Yes, sir. 

Mr. B. How long have you known him? 

Mr. J. That is a pretty hard question, but ever since he came to Spar- 
tanburg in 1889. I knew him before then from seeing him, but I never 
had anything to do with him till he moved here as a professor in Wof- 
ford College. 

Mr. B. Do you know his reputation among his brethren in South Car- 
olina and among those who have been associated with him in his work 
as being a manipulator and wire-puller? 

Mr. J. Do you mean in Conference? 

Mr, B. Yes, in Conference and in other work. 

Mr, J. As for manipulating Conferences, or anything of that sort, I 
never was a delegate, but I have been a good many times. 

Mr. B. State whether it has been currently reported that Dr. Kilgo 
was a skillful wire-puller, etc. 

(Dr. Kilgo protested.) 



[ 83 J 

Mr. J. I do not know enough to say positively. I may have heard 
that he was a manipulator, etc., but those w^ords are too strong. So far 
as the college goes, I know him better. His influence at the college was 
to this effect : He liked to have his way ; not that he was a trickster, 
but he was a determined man and liked to manage and have his way. He 
was not a negative man, but always a positive man, and so far as his 
character is concerned, if this was an attack on his veracity for man- 
hood, general or moral character, it must not go in this State, for his 
character is first-class in every sense. Now, of course I have heard, more 
or less, that he liked to manage over at the college and have his way, 
but I don't know that that amounts to anything either way. 

Mr. B. I have heard this, that he manipulated. 

Mr. J. Well, I don't mean that. But through his influence the 
charge had gone out that a number of the new Trustees were Kilgo 
men. Of course these men were appointed by the Board of Education 
and elected by the Conference and recommended. It has been charged 
throughout the Conference and elsewhere that he had his delegates 
and I was one of them, and of course it made me feel a little delicate, 
because some men were left out who were popular men before, and I 
was made to feel as a Kilgo man in the presence of these men. They 
had no right to attack Dr. Kilgo any more than Dr. Jones. Dr. Jones 
was formerly a Trustee, but those two men were largely to blame for 
it. How they did wrong is a question for the public to state They 
were men who were put out, or not recommended by the Board of Edu- 
cation, were older men, had been Trustees a long time. The men put 
in were younger men. Of course I have heard a great deal of complaint 
along that line. As Secretary of the Board of Trustees, having access 
to the books, I know that, to use the common expression, he was a hust- 
ler, because you will find a number of resolutions along there, intro- 
duced by Kirkland, Weber and others, praising him very highly for his 
success in the field in obtaining students. He strengthened the college 
very much. For instance, the patronage of the college before he came 
here was about seventy or eighty, and when he left here it w^as double. 
So that made him very popular. He is a positive man, and you hear 
now and then some little Temark about him that may be speculation. 
He is not a Holiness man, and the Holiness men somewhat strike at him. 
He is not in sympathy with a certain line of men, and that, maybe, 
caused some talk about him. I mean those men w^ho go about in this 
State under the Holiness Association. Now, Mr. Ligon is President of 
the Association. That class of men have some prejudice. If you want 
any particular question, you can ask it. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. KILGO. 

Dr. Kilgo : Mr. Jennings, President Kilgo, as you knew him in his 
dealings with you as an employee of the Board on which you were, was 
he rather independent in his attitude and actions, or was he trying to 
persuade you and other men on the Board to carry out little tricks and 
schemes of his? 

Mr. J. He was always independent and stood on his manhood. Dr. 
Kilgo liked to have his way if he could . If he wanted anything he 
would not mind asking for it. But so far as that is concerned he gave 
entire satisfaction and was a hustler. 

Dr. K. Did not the Board pass very complimentary resolutions con- 
cerning Dr. Kilgo when he went to Trinity? 



[ 84 ] 

Mr. S. It did. I recollect very distinctly, because I was Secretary and 
sent them to you. 

Dr. K. Did not Wofford College enthusiastically confer the degree of 
Doctor of Divinity on him? 

Mr. J. Yes, sir. (Signed) J. K. Jennings. 

Mr. Branson : I move the Board adjourn till 9,o' clock in the morning. 



[ 85 ] 



Proceedings of Wednesday, August 31, i8g8. 



Pursuant to adjournment the Board of Trustees met at 9 a. m. in Bene- 
factor's Hall. 

The meeting was called to order by the President, J. H. Southgate, in 
the chair, and opened with prayer by Rev. S. B. Turrentine. The roll 
was called, and the following were present and answered to their names: 

[Minutes show that all the members present at the after- 
noon session, August 30, were now present, with the 
exception of Mr. A. H. Stokes.] 

Dr. KiLGO : Before going further, I should like to ask the prosecution 
if they intend to put Mr. Webster on the stand this morning? 

Mr. Oglesby: No, sir. 

Dr. KiLGO : Then it has been the rule of this court to exclude all news- 
paper reporters and I ask that the court exclude him. 

Mr. Webster : I understand that all newspaper men are excluded? 

Mr. Chairman: Yes, sir; all not direcly connected with this trial. 

[Mr. Webster retires.] 

Mr. Oglesby : I suppose we are about ready to begin. 

Mr. Hurley : I move that all the papers presented to this Board by- 
Judge Clark be put into the hands of a special committee for consid- 
eration. 

Mr. Bishop : I second the motion. 

The motion was carried. 

Mr. Chairman appointed on the committee Mr. Hurley, Mr. Bishop 
and Dr. Peacock. 

Mr. Oglesby : I wish to offer the deposition of T. B. Kingsbury. 

Dr. KiLGO: I wish to ask how was the deposition taken? 

Mr. O. Formally, taken after due notice. 

Dr. K. Taken before a Magistrate or an affidavit? 

Mr. O. Sworn before a Notary Public. The defense was notified but 
was not present. 

Dr K. There is a difference in notifying the defense and in going on 
and taking the deposition without him. 



[ 86 J 

T. B. Kingsbury* s Deposition, 

The deposition was read by Mr. Oglesby as follows: 
NORTH CAROLINA— New Hanover County. 

In the matter against Dr. John C. Kilgo — Before the Board of Trustees 
of Trinity College, N. C: 

At the office of the Wilmington Messenger, in the city of Wilmington, 
said State and County, on the 25th day of August, 1898, Dr. John C. 
Kilgo liot being present nor represented by attorney, the Board of Trus- 
tees of said College being represented by B. C. Beckwith, Esq., I pro- 
ceeded to take the deposition of Dr. T. B, Kingsbury, who, being duly 
sworn, deposes and says: 

Question: What is your name, residence and profession or business? 
Answer : T. B. Kingsbury ; I am a citizen and resident of Wilming- 
ton, North Carolina, and Editor of the Wilmington Messenger. 

Ques. Are you connected with any church? 

Ans. Yes, I am a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

Ques. Did you at any time receive a verbal message from Dr. John 
C. Kilgo, the President of Trinity College, N. C. , and if so, when and to 
what purport? 

(Please answer the question in your own way.) 

Ans. Yes. On, or about the 28th of June, 1897, Mr. J. A. Crews 
reported to me that he had seen and talked with Dr. Kilgo at Morehead 
City, and that Dr. Kilgo had sent me a message. By referring to 
the Wilmington Messenger, for the purpose of refreshing my memory 
issue of July 15th, '97, in a card signed T. B. Kingsbury, I find the mes- 
sage and threats reported to me by Mr. J. A. Crews were, as near as I 
recall them, as follows: "Tell Kingsbury I say he is a hypocrite and a 
fraud." The threats were : "I say Kingsbury is a liar and he knows 
when he lies. I have the medicine for him and I shall spread it all 
about. I have a mission, and I mean to destroy him. He must be 
driven out of North Carolina. I will diive him out. He and I cannot 
remain in it. He ought to be driven out of the Methodist Church. If 
he is driven from the Messenger he can find nothing to do— no other 
paper in North Carolina would have him ; he cannot get employment 
out of the State. I can get a place outside. I have the Methodist 
preachers of the State at my back. ' ' 

Ques. Did the message and threats referred to appear in any paper? 

Ans. Yes Published in Wilmington Messenger, July 15th, 1897, in a 
card signed, T. B. Kingsbury. I desire to say that it was not the writ- 
ten articles published by Dr. Kilgo that greatly moved, disturbed, aroused 
me, but the spoken words so barbed and personally severe. I forbore to 
write for a week or more, so wounded to the quick I was, for it entered 
into my real soul, lacerating and profoundly moving it, and robbed me 
of peace, happinesss and much of sleep for nights. 

Ques. What is your age Dr. Kingsbury? 
Ans. Seventy years next Monday. 

Ques. Do you know the general character of J. A. Crews? 
Ans. Yes. He is a man of high character and veracity. 

T. B, Kingsbury. 

Sworn and subscribed before me this the 25th of August, 1898. 

W. M. CuMMiNG, [Seal.] 
Notary Public. 



[ 87 ] 

Dr. KiLGO : Mr. President, I wish to ask the prosecution on what 
charge he presents the testimony? 

Mr. Oglesby : Calling special attention to the statement there that 
"I have the Methodist preachers at my back"— going to prove that he 
is a wire-puller and a manipulator. 

Dr. KiLGO: Then I object to the whole thing on the ground that it is 
hearsay. You say Mr. Crews told him. So far as the Board is coi^- 
cerned I will say that I published what I did say about Mr. Kingsburj- and 
I now see no reason to change it and do not change it. I stand by my 
published statement, but I object to the hearsay from Mr. Crews. 

Mr. Chairman : Does your exception involve the ruling it out entirely 
from the proceedings? 

Dr. KiLGO: Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chairman : What does the prosecution say? 

Mr. Oglesby : This is a sworn statement that Dr. Kingsbury received 
this message from Dr. Kilgo through Mr. Crews. 

Dr. Kilgo : Do you stand upon Mr. Crews' character? 

Mr. O. Dr. Kingsbury does. 

Dr. K. Oh, yes. 

(The deposition was admitted as evidence. Dr. Kilgo consenting.) 

Mr. O. 1 offer deposition from Mr. J. W. Jackson. 

Dr. K. Where was it taken? 

Mr. O. At Wilmington. 

Dr. K. Was the defence notified that this deposition would be taken? 

Mr. O. I do not know, sir. 

Dr. K. I do know. 

Mr. Chairman: I do not think the defence was notified in that it 
seemed to be a character-deposition only. 

Dr. Kilgo : It makes no difference. The defence was not notified* 

Mr. Oglesby : I shall not offer it then. I propose to adhere to strict 
regulations I thought that was in proper form till I examined it. 

Mr. Chairman : T»did not rule out the deposition of Mr. Kingsbury. 
It is in legal form. As to the matter of it, it is for your hearing. Aj 
to the other deposition I shall object, as it was not taken in proper form. 

Mr. Oglesby: I wish to ask the court to take judicial notice of the 
literature of the College in that Dr. Kilgo was a member of the Faculty. 

Dr. Kilgo : Under what charge do you wish to bring that? 

Mr. O. Your preventing him from producing certain testimony he had 
to support the original charge. • 

Dr. K. On the first charge then? 

Mr. O. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Very good, then let it go. 

Mr. O. (Reading the charge.) I call attentidki to a slip from the cata- 
logue of lb94-'5, headed Faculty. I wish also to put in testimony the 
files of the N. C. Christian Advocate and The Christian Educator. 



[ 88] 

Dr. K. What file? 

Mr. O. The entire file. 

Dr. K. What year — when and where? 

Mr. O. The files for the last three months. I simply want to show 
that from the resolutions passed by the District Conferences that Dr. 
Kilgo was a manipulator. I wish to call attention to the fact that as 
some of the depositions were taken without notice to the defence, I will 
not put them in. Certain depositions by Mr. Beckwith at Kelford 
They do not bear on the question at issue. 

Judge Clark : I don't want it to be understood that I kick against 
any ruling. I understood that when you charged that I was to present 
evidence of Dr Kilgo's character I was to get such testimony as would 
prove my charge. Under that I presented evidence that was incompetent. 
Another was an affidavit from Roxboro, concerning a speech in which 
he spoke of a diamond ring, and as to his other speech in Sampson ; and 
also the resolutions of the Western North Carolina Conference in regard 
to cigarettes, and also I have some pictures that the American Tobacco 
Company sent out to their trade. Of course I understand from your rulings 
that they are all ruled out and I do not want to kick against the court. 
I was simply complying with what I thought was your request. 

Dr. Kilgo: I wish to ask the court were the names of those parties in 
Roxboro and Caswell county put in your hands? 

Mr. Chairman: No, sir. 

Dr. K11.G0: So you did not know who was to be examined? They were 
never in my hands. I can make the rest of that appear as I move on. 

Mr. OgIvESBy: As prosecutor I tried to be faithful, conscientious and 
honest. I assume responsibility for this testimony. It is not a matter 
which the court has decided. I would not presume to present an affida- 
vit excluded by your rule This is not a matter which the court has ex- 
cluded but which the prosecutor has not brought forward for the Board 
to accept or exclude. 

Dr. Peacock: Did you understand when you started to get your testi- 
mony the kind that would be required here? 

Mr. O. You mean the form? 
Dr. P. Yes, sir. 
Mr. O. Oh, yes, sir. 

Dr. P. You had the same notice as to the type of evidence we wanted? 
Mr. O. Oh, yes, sir. 

Dr. K11.GO: I wish to ask the prosecution if lie intends to put the ac- 
cuser, Judge Clark, on the stand? 
Mr. Ogi^ESBy: No, sir. 
Dr. K11.GO. Can you give any just reason? 
Mr. O. He declines to be a witness. 



[Here the prosecution rested their -case.] 



Dr. K. I wish for you to put the minutes of your meeting of July 18, 
1898, in testimony. 



[ 89 J 

Mr. Chairman: Bearing upon what, sir? 

Mr. Kii,GOr The whole minutes. Judge Clark's failure to testify. 

Mr. C. Mr. Prosecutor, do you object to the minutes, as to anything 
in connection with this matter? 

Mr. Ogi^ESBY: I have no objection. 

Mr. Chairman: The minutes will be introduced as evidence. 

Dr. KiivGO: I should like to ask the court some questions, if admissible. 
How did ->lr. Beckwith become prosecutor in this case? By your appoint- 
ment, or by Mr. Oglesby's? Or how? 

Mr. OGiyESBY: That is embraced in the correspondence which I have 
placed in the Secretary's hands. 

Dr. K. That correspondence has not been read and there are some facts 
I want to get at just now. ^ 

Mr. O. I was compelled to go on vacation for a needed rest. I saw 
that I would not get back in time to do the work before it was too late. 
Before leaving home I asked Judge Clark to receive the list of names and 
to appoint a suitable person to take such depositions as were proper, and 
so he, at my instance, representing me, appointed Mr. Beckwith as pros- 
ecutor. I did that in which I regard simple justice to all parties inter- 
ested. 

Dr. Kii^GO: I understand that. That is not the point. Did Judge Clark 
ask you to appoint Mr. Beckwith? 

Mr. Chairman: I will say he was appointed by agreement, but his 
name was suggested by Judge Clark as a suitable person and he was se- 
lected for that purpose. 

Dr. K. Did not Judge Clark bring the matter to the court and ask you 
to appoint him ? 

Mr. C. That is what I stated, sir. 

Dr. K. Were you asked by Judge Clark to appoint any other prosecu- 
tor m the case. 

Mr. C. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Who was that? 

Mr. C. Mr. R. B. Boone. 

Dr. K. Did you know that Mr. Ivey had been appointed as assistant 
prosecutor? 

Mr. C. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Was there any effort to oppose his acting. 

Mr. C. No, sir. 

Dr. K. He was perfectly acceptable to all parties? 

Mr. C So far as I know. 

Dr K. I wish to ask you to put in evidence the letter of Judge Clajk to 
the President of this Board in which he makes these accusations. 

Mr. C. Have you the letter, sir? 

Dr. K. I have a printed copy of it here — what appeared in the paper. 
If that will be acceptable I can give you a copy of it. 



[ 90 ] 

Mr. C. If the prosecution does not dispute the letter it is all right, 

[See letter, page ii.] 

Dr. K. It is printed in the Christian Educator, copied from the 
other papers. Is theletter in the minutes — the one Judge Clark wrote to 
Mr. Southgate.-* 

Mr. C. No, ?ir. 

Mr. Ogi^ESBy: I would like to know for what that letter is oflFered. 

Dr. Kii/Go: In order to secure the defense against the attempts to run 
in irrelevant testimony, and as a link in the chain to show the spirit and 
the purpose. We want the original document; the defense wants it. 

Mr. O. I beg to call your attention to the fact that the charges have 
.been specified, and I do not see that it is necessary for us to go outside of 
our bill of indictment for further specifications. There might arise from 
those specifications sqme things that have escaped my mind. If there 
should be, of course, I should feel called upon to produce testimony to 
support any additional charge 

Dr. K. Mr. President, in the bill of indictment sent me, dated August 12, 
there are specific charges. Now the court knows that there has been an 
eflfort to run in irrelevant testimony and to put various interpretations on 
these statements in these charges, and if the defense is not allowed to put 
in the original document, then he has nothing in the hands of this Board 
by which to establish his position and to protect himself. 

Mr. Chairman: Well, what is your request? 

Dr. K. That you put in testimony the letter of Judge Clark to you, 

Mr. C. Letters or letter ? 

Dr. K. The letter in which the charges were made. I wish you would 
say yes or no. If the court will not order it, say so. 

Mr. C. I will say so time enough. The court is certainly entitled to any 
parts of that letter which bear on the specifications now being investi- 
gated. The court wants nothing to do with any part which does not bear 
upon them, and \ see no objection in the world. I will note an objection 
from the prosecution if he wishes. 

Mr. Oglesby: I wish to serve notice that if there arises anything in 
that that is not in these specifications (pointing to the bill of indictment) 
I shall ask for the right to produce testimony. 

Dr. K. I furthermore ask that you put in the bill of indictment sent J. 
C. Kilgo, because it carries this, and your bill of indictment is not iden- 
tical with the bill given the defense. This bill I have says Judge Clark 
is expected to furnish you at once with names and addresses of parties, 
etc. 

Mr. O. Mr. Chairman, there are two things at least on that sheet of pa- 
per. One is our statement of the charges to be proved, the other a request 
that these may be placed in the hands of the defense. Certainly the lat- 
ter is not part of the charge against him. 

Dr. K. It is not, Mr. Chairman, but evidently the Board understood 
that these names should be furnished me. They were not furnished me. 

Mr. Chairman: What names do you mean ? 

Dr. K. To all the names that were to be presented here as witnesses- 



[ 01 ] 

When I was arrested it was on that statement of the charges against me. 
The defense has been maliciously dealt with and this an important point, 

Mr. Chairman: Do you take it that no names were presented to you? 

Dr. K. I do not say so. But one name not presented to me may work me 
a great injustice. I should think the court would be willing to stand by 
the warrant. 

Mr. C. That is what it does, sir. 

Dr. K. And you admit a copy of this identical bill to your testimony. 

Mr. C. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. I wish to put in testimony a catalogue of Wofiford College for 
1896 97 in which is a list of . the alumni of the institution, 'showing the 
size of the classes especially of those when I was connected with that col- 
lege. Is there any objection? 

Mr. OgIvESBY: None, sir. 

Dr. K: I wish to ask the court the extent of the authority given to Mr. 
Beckwith when sent to South Carolina, whether sent to examine specific 
par i?s or to go at his own will and look up rumors from any sources he 
chose. 

Mr. Chairman: You will find all of that information in the letter to 
Mr. Beckwith on file here. 

. Dr. K. I know, Mr. President, but I have not seen that letter. 

Mr. C. It was read last night. 

Dr. K. Will Mr. Beckwith identify this letter I have, dated August 11, 
1898,, unless the prosecution will admit it without that. It is written to 
Mr. Southgate and now in my hands. 

RAI.EIGH, N. C, August 11, 1898. 
James H. Southgate, Esq , President Board Trustees, Durham, N. C: 

Dear Sir: — Will you please notify Dr. Jno. C. Kilgo that as represen- 
tative pro tern of the prosecution I will take the deposition of the follow- 
ing witnesses: 

Rev. T. C. Ligon, at Rock Hill, S. C, Tuesday, the i6th of August. 

At Spartanburg, S. C, on Wednesday and Thursday, the 17th and i8th 
of August, 1898, W. E. Burnett, J. K. Jennings, George Cofield, S. A. 
Weber, W. R. Richardson, Dr. Carlisle and Prof. C. B. Smith. 

At Abbeville, S. C, on Friday, the 19th inst.. Rev. J. W. Daniel. 

At Columbia, S C, on Monday, the 22d inst., Rev. G. W. Waddelland 
Dr. G. M. Rice. 

At Sumpter, S. C, on Tuesday, the 23d inst, J. A. Clifton. 

At Wilmington, N. C, on Thursday, the 25th inst, T. B. Kingsbury 
and J. A Crews. 

At Kelford, (Bertie Co.,) N. C. on Saturday, the 27th inst., H. P. Har- 
rell, W. H. Evans, J. B. Bryant and A. J. Connor. 

At each of these places I will get some magistrate or notary public to 
take depositions. It is immaterial who he is as he is merely a clerk with- 
out any judicial function. And Dr. Kilgo 's representative and myself 
can readily agree upon some notary or magistrate at each place. 

Very respectfully, &c , B. C. Beckwith. 

That was a notification for me. 

Mr. Chairman: That was a list of names you were entitled to have so 
that you might be present. I see no objection. 



[ 92 J 

Dr. K. The point is this: I want that entered. I want no ground of 
denial left. If Mr. Beckwith is here he can identify the letter. (To the 
Chairman.) Can you identify it? It is written to you. Did you receive 
it from Mr. Beckwith and forward it to me? 

[Here the Chair identified the letter. The defense then 
presented his witnesses.] 

Prof. Flowers^ s Evidence. 

Dr. Kii,GO: Where were you the night of the serenade of Mr. Duke dur- 
ing commencement week? 

Ans. I was at Mr. Duke's house. I got the procession up and went 
down with it. 

Dr. K. Do you know anything of President Kilgo acting in a manner 
of sycophancy toward Mr. Duke on that occasion. 
Ans. Nothing that I construed in any such way. 

Dr. K. Did you hear President Kilgo extol Mr. Duke as the greatest 
man the State has ever produced, etc? 

Ans. I heard you make your speech but there was nothing of that na- 
ture in it or that I thought could be construed that way. 

Dr. K. Anything that approximated that ? 
Ans. No, sir. 

Dr. K. In your observation of Dr. Kilgo is he a man that resorts to 
tricks and schemes? 

Ans, In my relation to him, ofi&cial and personal, I don't think I have 
ever known a man who was freer from anything of that kind. He was 
always free and open. 

Dr. K. What is your name? 
Ans. R Iv. Flowers. 

Dr. K11.G0: Your occupation ? 

Ans. Professor of Mathematics at Trinity College. 

Mr. Ogi^KSBy: Did not Dr. Kilgo say on Mr. Duke's porch that greater 
than all these North Carolina has the greatest philanthropist ? 

Ans. He did not. I can tell you very nearly the exact words he said; 
but he said nothing that indicated that he was extolling him over the 
other men of the State. 

Mr. Oglksby: Did you hear the testimony last night ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Oglesby: Did he use the language stated? 

Ans. I don't think he did. He used some words that approximated 
Mr. Council's words. 

Judge C1.ARK: Did you take down notes, sir ? 
Ans No, sir. 

Prof. Pegram^s Mvidence. 

Dr. KiivGO: What is your name? 
Ans. W. H. Pegram. 

Dr. K. Your occupation ? 

Ans. Professor of Chemistry in Trinity College. 



[ 93 ] 

Dr. K. Do you know the President of Trinity College ? 
Ans. I do. 

Dr. K, In your dealings with the President of Trinity College have you 
found him a man given to trickery, or is he an open, frank man ? 
Ans. He is open, very frank, and very impartial. 

Mr. OGI.ESBY : Did you hear Dr. Kilgo's speech at Mr. Duke's ? 
Ans. I did. 

Mr. O. Did you hear him say, after citing some extraordinary things, 
that greater than all these. North Carolina produced the greatest philan- 
thropist ? 

Ans. I remember about the substance ot the speech, but I cannot recall 
the exact language. I can't recall anything that impressed me- as objec- 
tionable. 

Mr. O. Did he not say that as to King's Mountain, Mecklenburg De- 
claration, Bethel — that greater than all these North Carolina produced 
the greatest philanthropist of the South ? 

Ans. I don't remember that. I remember his speaking of the greatness 
of Mr. Duke's gift, but I could not testify as to the exact manner, and 
could not say whether he said ''greater than all these.'' 

Dr. KiivGO: Did President Kilgo say what is in the letter that I have 
just read? (This was after reading extract from Judge Clark's letter, in 
which extract Judge Clark brought the charge of sycophancy.) 

Ans. Why, no; no such impression was made on my mind. 

Mr, MeriWs Evidence. 

Dr. KiivGo: What is your name? 
Ans. A. H. Meritt. 

Dr. K. Where do you reside, and your occupation ? 
Ans. Durham, N. C, and teacher. 

Dr. K. Where do you teach ? 
Ans. At Trinity College. 

Dr. K. You know the President of Trinity College ? 
Ans. Slightly. 

Dr. K. Has he impressed you as rather a scheming, tricky man, or 
rather as an open, frank man, trying to deal with his fellow men honestly ? 
Ans. He dealt squarely with me and all I know anything about. 

Dr. K. Did you hear him speak at Mr. Duke's. 
Ans. I did. 

Dr. K. Did he make that speech that I read ? 
Ans. Nothing that sounded like it. 

Mr. OdeIvI*: You say you know Dr. Kilgo slightly -* 

Ans. Well, I know him from five or six years' acquaintance. 

Dr. Kii,GO: Are you and Dr. Kilgo intimate in your associations? 
Ans. Yes, we have worked together five or six years in the College. 

Mr. OGiyESBv: Were you here last night? 
Ans. Yes, sir 

Mr. O. Did you hear Mr. Council read the clipping from the Durham 
Sun? 

Ans. Yes. sir. 



[ 94 ] 

Mr. O. He cited the fact that Dr. Kilgo said "greater than all these,"' 
etc. Did you hear him use that language? 
Ans. No, sir. 

Mr. O. You are certain of that ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Mr. O. Did he not put the fact of Mr. Duke's magnificent gifts to Trin- 
ity College above all these things ? 
Ans. No, sir. 

Dr. BasseWs Evidence, 

Dr. Kilgo: What is your name ? 
Ans. J. S. Bassett. 

Dr, K. Where do you live, and your occupation ? 
Ans. Professor of History in Trinity College 

Dr. K. Do you know President Kilgo of Trinity College ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. What is your observation as to the type of man and his general 
dealings with people ? 

Ans, As a man of great candor, frankness and impartiality. I have 
often thought of him as a man who would not keep a secret. 

Dr. K. Did you hear him speak the night of the serenade at Mr. Duke's? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

^Dr. K. Did he read that speech ? (reading the extract referred to.) 
Ans. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Did you ever hear Dr. Kilgo use any blasphemous language ? 
Ans. No, sir. I think I should have noticed any. I am professor of 
History here and think I should have noticed it. 

Dr. K. Well, is he given to blasphemy ? 
Ans. He is very reverent. 

Dr. K. Do you know Rev. T. J. Gattis, of this town ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Did he ever talk to you about Dr. Kilgo ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Did he talk kindly of him? or did he seem to want to rather 
reflect on him ? 

Ans. I think he spoke insinuatingly. 

Mr. OgIvESBY: I don't know about that class of testimony. I am will- 
ing for anything to come in legitimately. 

Dr. KiLGO: It is direct testimony. 

Mr. Chairman: Do you want to know the course of facts he seeks to 
bring out by that ? 

Dr. Kilgo: I want to show that Mr. Gattis has talked to more than one 
party reflecting in a manner on President Kilgo. (To the witness.) Can 
you tell us any instance in which he talked to you about him ? 

Mr. OgleSBY: Mr. Chairman, the court has not ruled upon that. 

Dr. KiLQO: I withdraw it. Let it go. 

Mr. O. You say you are interested in North Carolina history. You 
heard what he said. Did he not cite some history down there that night? 
Ans. Yes. sir. 



[ 95 ] _ 

Mr. O. Can you tell what he said? 

Ans. He spoke of the first soldier killed in the Civil War and of the 
Mecklenburg Declaration, and of the fact that North Carolina had the 
greatest Southern philanthropist. 

Mr. O. Did he not say that greater than all these, etc. 
Ans. No, sir. When I saw the published statement I recalled very 
clearly that he said "added to these." 

Judge Clark: Did you take any notes at that time ? 
Ans. No, sir. 

Dr, Cranford*s Evidence, 

Dr. KiLGo: What is your name? 
Ans. W. I. Cranford. 

Dr. K- Where do you reside and what is your occupation ? 
Ans. At Trinity College and teacher in the college. 

Dr. K. You know Dr. Kilgo, President of Trinity College ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. What about him in his dealings with men, from your observa- 
tion ? 

Ans. I think he is very frank — very independent. He has his own 
opinion and expresses it fearlessly. He is, I believe, the most open, 
independent man I know, or as much so as any man. 

Dr. K. Have you ever noticed anything in your association with him 
that made you believe that he toadied to men of wealth and influence? 

Ans. Not the least. In fact, he struck me as being on the other 
extreme. 

Dr. K. Did you hear the speech he made at Mr. Duke's. 
Ans. I did. 

Dr. K Did he make this speech which Judge Clark quotes ? 
Ans. Nothing like it. 

Dr. K. Has he impressed j'ou with being an irreverent man ? 
Ans. He never has. 

Mr. OgIvESBy: You heard the paragraph read last night ? 
Ans. I did. 

Mr. O. Was it reported correctly? Did he not say greater than all 
these, etc. 

Ans. On that point I am quite sure that the paragraph was incorrect. 

Mr, Bivins^s Evidence. 

Dr. KiLGO: What is your name? 
Ans. J. F. Bivins 

Dr. K. Where do you reside? 

Ans. At Durham now. Have been living at Albemarle, N. C, for the 
past year. 

Dr. K. Do you know President Kilgo, of Trinity College ? 
Ans. I do. 

Dr. K. Were you a student under him ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 



[ 96 ] 

Dr. K. In his class-room talk to his students were you led to think that 
he was a man who toadied to wealth and who wanted the students ta 
worship wealth ? 

Ans. His attitude was just the opposite. He always encouraged the 
poor boy and never laughed at povert}'. He rather gave us to understand 
that it was fortunate for a boy to be born poor. Often it was a greater 
incentive to him than to be born wealthy. 

Dr. K. In his dealings with the student body, did he deal with them as 
trying to carry out little tricks ? 

Ans. No, sir; he was always open and frank and true, and you had no 
trouble to understand where he stood. I have never known him to be 
deceitful. 

Dr. K. Was he a reverent or irreverent man in his dealings with the 
students ? 

Ans. Always very reverent, and from the time he came to the college 
those qualities began to be noted among the boys. We had the biggest 
revival we ever had in the history of the college, so far as I know, after 
he came; and he had a great deal to do with that. I was a member of 
the Y. M. C. A. at the time, and could know his influence with the boys 
with whom I associated- 

Dr. K. What is his reputation among his students ? ' 

Ans. Well, his students look on him as being the soul of honor and 

truth. They always admire him for his manhood and I have never known 

a boy to say anything against his personal character. 

Mr, Grissom^s Evidence. 

Dr. KiLGO: What is your name? 
Ans. W. L. Grissom. 

Dr. K. Where do you reside? 
Ans. Greensboro. N. C. 

Dr, K. Were you ever a member of the N. C. Conference? 
Ans. I was. 

Dr. K. Ever had any association with Dr. Kilgo, President of Trinity 
College? 
Ans. Yes, ^r. 

Dr. K. What is your observation of bis dealing with men? 
Ans. As being a man of openness and candor. 

Dr. K. Is he a man who talks his opinion out or is he what you might 
call an unscrupulous diplomat? 

Ans. I think if we have any man among us who speaks his convictions 
he does. 

Dr. K. Were you in the Advocate office [at Greensboro, N. C.,] on the 
18th of July, or thereabout. 
Ans. I was in there the day during your first meeting of the Boards 

Dr. K. Can you tell us anything that occurred that day that had ref- 
erence to this trial? 

Ans. I was in there during the afternoon. Dr. Mclver came in and 
said to Dr. 'Crawford that Judge Clark had come up on the train with 
him to Durham to attend this meeting and that he only had a word with 
him [Clark] to go ahead, he [Mclver] was with him in the fight 

Dr. K. And that was told to Dr. Crawford by Dr. Mclver? Was that 
the Dr. Mclver who is President of the Normal State School? 
Ans. Yes. sir. 



[ 97 ] 

Dr. K. Did you go from here last night with Rev. Mr. Gattis? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Did he have any remarks specially to make about his gladness 
to testify? 

Ans. He said he regretted very much to do so ; that he would not hav(e 
done it for |100, if he could have avoided it, but he was pressed to do so. 

Mr. Oglesby : You say you know Dr. Kilgo very well? 
Ans. I do. 

Mr. O. Did you never suspect that what seems to be Dr. Kilgo's open, 
frank way, was a matter of policy with him? 
Ans. No, sir. 

Mr. O. Might not a man have that as a part of his scheme? as a way 
of appealing to the public patronage in driving his enterprises? 

Ans. I think I have always known where to find him on any ques- 
tion. 

Mr. O. It would not foUow because he had an outspoken way that he 
was trying to manipulate things? 

Ans. I have never detected it, nor seen anything to believe that he 
would. 

Mr. JuRNEY : Didn't Dr. Mclver tell Dr. Crawford, speaking of Judge 
Clark, "I tell you he is loaded for it!" 

Ans. I don't know that he said just that. He said he thought he was 
prepared, but there was no telling what he would do, that he always 
does what you do not expect him to do. That was what he said of Judge 
Clark. 

Mr. Parrish : Did I understand Mclver said to Crawford that he had 
a conversation with Judge Clark and that he (Mclver) was with him in 
this fight? 

Ans. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JuRNEY : That explains a great deal, brethren. 

Dr. Kilgo : What is the general character of Dr. Kilgo? 
Ans. I think it is good. 

Dr. K. I wish to get on the records in this trial the exact facts con- 
cerning the suggestion which the President of this College made to elect 
the Faculty for a longer term, and I want to ask this court to put these 
facts on record. I wish to ask Dr. Brooks to take the stand. Did Presi- 
dent Kilgo include himself in that motion as you understood? 

Mr, IVEY : Does that come under any of the charges, Doctor? 

Dr. Kilgo : Yes. 

Dr. Brooks: I want to say in the outset that this is the first notice I 
have had served on me. I do not remember that you included your- 
self. 

Dr. K. What is your^istinct recollection? 

Mr. Oglesby : I would suggest that you get his name. 

D. Brooks : John R. Brooks, Salisbury, N. C. 

Dr. Kilgo : Your occupation? 

Dr. Brooks : Minister of the gospel. 

Dr. Kilgo : Member of this Board? 

Dr. Brooks :' Yes, sir. 



[ 98 ] 



Dr. KiLGO: Were you present at the meeting in June, 1897? 

Dr. Brooks: Yes, sir. 

Dr. KiLGO : Do you remember anything Dr. Kilgo said in his report 
concerning the election of the Faculty for a longer term? 

Dr. Brooks : Yes, sir. My recollection is that you recommended in 
your report, and I got the impression from the report, that you were not 
included in the Faculty and made no effort to be included in that recom- 
mendation, and from that I moved that the President be included in the 
election for four years— if the Faculty should be elected for four years. 

Dr. K. Did Dr. Kilgo say that he wanted that done? 

Dr. B. I do not remember any statement that you made after I made 
the motion. I think you made a statement in connection with the pre- 
sentatio» of your report to the effect that you did include yourself 
in that, and my motion was based on that statement to include you with 
the Faculty. I do not remember any statement you made in connection 
with the motion. 

Mr. CoLE: What became of your motion? 

Dr. Brooks: I think it was adopted. 

Mr, Oglesby: You said you made the motion becaue Dr. Kilgo gave 
you to understand that he did not include himself in that suggestion? 

Dr. Brooks : I have a distinct impression from his report or from his 
oral statement I was moved to make that motion. I had the impression 
he was not included. 

Dr. Kilgo : I don't know. I have not talked to any Trustee about this 
matter. I have not told Dr. Brooks that he would be brought up. But 
I want the truth and I would like for any Trustee to state whether I 
excepted myself or not? 

Mr, Bishop's Mvidence, 

Dr. Kilgo: What is your name? 
Ans. F. A. Bishop. 

Dr. K. Where do you reside? 

Ans. Fayetteville is my headquarters. 

Dr. K. Are you a member of the Board of Trustees of Trinity College ? 
Ans. I am. 

Dr. K. Did you attend the June meeting of 1897 ? 
Ans. I did. 

Dr. K. Do you recall any facts concerning a recommendation that Dr. 
Kilgo made to elect Faculty for longer than one year ? 

Ans. I recollect the recommendation in the President's report that the 
Faculty be elected for the term of four years, and the motion was made 
and Dr. Kilgo excepted himself from it. A motion was made to include 
the President, and at Dr. Kilgo's request it was withdrawn. It is very 
clear in my mind. 

Dr. K. 'It was withdrawn at President Kilgo's request? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 



[ 99 ] 
Mr, Creasy^s Evidence. 



Dr. KiLGO: What is your name ? 
Ans. W. S. Creasy. 

Dr. K. Where do you reside ? 
Ans Winston, N. C. 

Dr. K. Are you a member of the Board of Trustees ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Did you attend the meeting of June, 1897 ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Tell us what you recollect about Dr. Kilgo's suggestion in his 
report to elect the Facultj' for a longer term than one year. 

Ans. My recollection is distinct that he recommended the election of 
the Faculty for four years, and gave as his reasons -that they were a first 
rate Facultj-, and there was danger of losing them unless they gave them 
some inducement to remain; that other places wanted them and that it 
was important to keep this efficient Faculty. That was the reason. He 
was not included in it himself. In fact, he said he was anxious about the 
Faculty. 

Dr. K. Do you recollect a motion of Dr. Brooks to include President 
Kilgo? 

Ans. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. What did he [Dr. Brooks] say about that motion ? 

Ans. He said he did not see why the President should be omitted; that 
if we elected the Professors, as a matter of fact we ought to elect the 
President. President Kilgo made a speech, and said he hoped we would 
not adopt that, and at his own request it was withdrawn. 

Mr, Tyer^s Mvidejice, 

Dr. KiivGO: What is your name ? 
Ans. Andrew P. Tyer. 

Dr. K. What is your occupation ? 
Ans. Member of N. C. Conference. 

Dr. K. Where do you reside? 
Ans. Wilmington. 

Dr. K. Are you a member of Board of Trustees of Trinity College ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Did you attend the June meeting, 1897 ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Dr K. Do you recollect the recommendation of the President to elect 
the Faculty and what occurred in that recommendation? 

Ans. My recollection is that the President recommended in his report 
that the Faculty be elected for four years, and that the matter was, on 
motion, referred to a special committee, and that some one made the 
motion that the President be included, and that to that the President 
objected, stating that these professors were laymen and men who had to 
provide for themselves, and had a right to know, longer than one year at 
a time, where they would be and what they would do When the special 
committee had reported a legal diflSculty, it was withdrawn. Dr. Kilgo 
said it was much like the Judge to see the legal difiSculty, and that in view 
of that consideration he would withdraw the recommendation. 



[ 100 J 

Dr. K. How long have you known Dr. Kilgo ? 
Ans. Since 1884. 

Dr. K. How did you come to know him ? 

Ans. I was stationed at St. John's, on the South Carolina line, when 
Dr. Kilgo was the preacher on the Bennettsville Circuit, and from then 
till now we have occasionally helped one another in work. 

Dr. K. Were you at Pineville once ? 
Ans. Yes, sir; two years. 

Dr. K. Was that near Rock Hill ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Did you have association with any South Carolina people along 
there ? 
Ans. Frequent. 

Dr. K. What was his general character as you know it? 

Ans. I never heard anything against him by any man, except some 
liquor sellers at Rock Hill. Some men down there said that if they did 
not get Kilgo out of Rock Hill they would have no Presbyterian church 
and no more bar-rooms. That is the most derogatory statement I have 
heard. 

Dr. K. Was his character good or bad ? 

Ans. Good. I make that statement universally. 

/. W. Kilgo's Evidence. 

Dr. KiivGo: What is your name? 
Ans. James W. Kilgo. 

Dr. K. Your residence ? 
Ans. Charleston, S. C. 

Dr. K. Your occupation ? 
Ans. Minister of the Gospel. 

Dr. K. Are you a relative of J. C. Kilgo? 
Ans. Brother. 

Dr. K. Did you attend the Conference in Rock Hill ? 
Ans. I did in 1895. 

Dr. K. Was there any complaint that the Conference brought against 
Mr. T. C. Ligon ? 
Ans. There was. 

Dr. K. About what ? 

Ans, In regard to his encouraging disloyalty to local preachers in his 
going into a district over the protest of a Presiding Elder and three 
preachers. The complaint was brought by Clifton, Young and Stokes. 

Dr. K. He was encouraging Mr. I^eech to go into these men's pastorates? 
Ans. That was the accusation. 

Dr. K. Did these men protest? 
Ans. They did. 

Dr. K. Why? 

Ans. Because it was thought that Mr. L/Cech would do great injury to 
the church. 

Dr. K. Was Mr. ligon in that district ? 
Ans. No, sir. 



[ 101 ] 

Dr. K. Is Mr. Ligon regarded in your Conference as a man of rather 
strong second-blessing proclivities ? 
Ans. Very. 

Mr. OgIvESBy: You say you are a brother of Dr. Kilgo ? 
Ans. I am. 

Mr. O. You know Mr. Ligon well — his general character? 
Ans. I know him as well as a person could. I have been associated 
with him in the Conference for ten years. 

Mr. O. What is His general character ? 

Ans. Nothing against his general moral character. 

Mr. O. You said he had very strong Second Blessing proclivities. Is 
that specially hurtful to a man? 

Ans. That would be a mere opinion of mine. I don't know whether I 
have a right to give in mere opinions. 

Mr O. Do you think Mr. Ligon's tendency in that direction leads him 
to feel unkind to a man who would not agree with him? 
Ans. I could not say that it would. 

Dr. Kii<Go: Would your relation to President Kilgo influence you to 
make a false statement in his interest? You think you could be fair and 
be his brother? 

Ans. Certainly I can. 

Mr. Bishop: Has there not been much criticism of Dr. Kilgo by mem- 
bers of that Holiness Association because of his positive stand? 

Ans. I have heard one instance; I cannot say where or when. It is not 
to be supposed that a man would talk to one's brother in regard to one. 

Dr. Kilgo : In your conversation with Mr. Gattis, your Colporteur, 
has he impressed you that he was friendly towards your brother, or 
rather as critical of your brother? 

Ans. He has made the impression of being critical in regard to my 
brother. 

Mr, Hurley^s Evidence, 

Dr. Kilgo : What is your name? 
Answer. J. B. Hurley. 

Dr. K. Where do you reside? 
Ans. At Wilson, N. C 

Dr. K. Your occupation? 

Ans. Pastor of the Methodist Church there. 

Dr. K. Do you know anything of Mr. Crews, representative of the 
Wilmington Messenger^ 

Ans. I know Mr. Crews when I see him. We are not personally 
acquainted. 

Dr. K. Do you know anything of his family relations? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Does lie live with his wife? 
Ans. No sir. 

Mr. Oglesby : You say that he does not live with his wife? 
Ans. That is my understanding. 

Mr. O. Do you know his wife? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

7 



[ 102 J 



Mr. O. What is her character? 
Ans. A lady of very high standing. 

Mr. Brooks : What are her church relations? 
Ans. I do not know. 

Mr, Ivey^s Evidence. 

Dr. KiLGo : What is your name? 
Ans. T. N. Ivey. 

Dr. K. Yonr occupation? 

Ans. An Editor of the North Carolina Christian Advocate. 

Dr. K. Where do you reside? 
Ans. Greensboro. 

Dr. K. Did you ever reside in Wilson, N. C? 
Ans. I did. 

Dr. K. Do you know anything of Mr. Crews? 
Ans. Yes, sir. I am acquainted with him. 

Dr. K. Do you know anj'^thmg of his family relations? 
Ans. All I know is that during four years I was in Wilson he and his 
wife did not live together. 

Dr. K. What is the reputation of his wife? 

Ans. I am not acquainted with her. I have head notlii jg against her. 

Dr. Oglesby: You do not know why they do not liva together? 
Ans. No sir. 

D:EP0SITI0NS for the DF^FUNCn. 

REPORT OF COMMISSIONER, REV. A. P. TVER. 

Pursuant to the appointment of the Board of Investigation held^on 
July 18th, to investigate the charges made by Judge Walter Clark 
against Doctor John C. Kilgo, President of Trinity College, I, A. P. 
Tyer, appointed Commissioner, proceeded to take the depositions of 
witnesses, Rev. G. A. Oglesby and Rev. T. N. Ivey, prosecutors for the 
Board, and Rev. Dr. John C. Kilgo, for the defense, being present. 

Rev. Dr. John O. Wilson from South Carolina, and Rev. H. F. Creitz- 
berg, of Charlotte, N. C, and H. J. Bass, of Durham, N. C, and Rev. 
S. B Turrentine, of Charlotte, N. C, after making solemn affirmation 
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, were 
examined and cross-examined by the defense and the prosecution, and 
gave the following testimony. A. P. Tyer, Commissioner.;^ 

John O, Wilson's Deposition. 

Rev. John O. Wilson being duly sworn, gave the f ollowing^deposition : 

Dr. Kilgo: Dr. Wilson, where is your home? 

Dr. Wilson : In Greenville, South Carolina, was born and raised there. 

Dr. K. What profession or livelihood do you follow? 

Dr. W. Member of the South Carolina Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South. 

Dr. K. Have you any official connection with that body? 

Dr. W. Ye?, Editor of the Southern Conference organ. 



[ 103 J 

Dr. K. How long have you held the position of Editor? 
Dr. W. This is the fourth year. I was elected in 1894 ^nd re-elected 
this last year. 

Dr. K. What class of work have you served in that Conference? 

Dr. W. My first appointment was Darlington, then Camden, Green- 
ville, Trinity, Greenville, Florence, Greenville, and the Advocate, 

Dr. K. Do you know the President of Trinity College? 

Dr. W. I do. 

Dr. K. How long have you known him? 

Dr. W. Since his boyhood. I suppose he was somewhere in his teens 
when I knew him first. I knew his father before him. His mother I 
know. 

Dr. K. Did you know him during his ministerial connection with the 
South Carolina Conferece? 

Dr. W. I did. 

Dr. K. Well, now. Dr. Wilson, I would like for you to tell what you 
have known about his reputation in South Carolina as a preacher and 
as a man. 

Dr. W. His reputation as a preacher and as a man both are of the 
highest order, are and were. I have known the ministerial career of tie 
President of Trinity College from the beginning. I was a member of 
the Conference when he entered it, and had occasion and opportunity to 
notice his advancement in every place; from his early services he was 
popular with the people as a preacher and pastor, and successful in his 
work. He served, first, circuits that were not so strong, then other 
circuits that were stronger, and when he was on Little Rock circuit he 
was elected Agent for Wofford College. To that position he was called 
without any thought of seeking it. The fact is, I know that the thought 
of his being fitted for that position, came to others, not to him. He 
took up that work and in a very little time demonstrated the wisdom 
of the selection of the Conference On the platfoi-m and in the pulpit, 
and wherever he met the people, in private or in public, his work for 
the College was of the highest order and most successful. Part of his 
work was to endeavor to raise money for the College, and he secured a 
large amount of pledges and a good quantity of cash. While in this 
work I saw much of him and had him often in a district I was serving, 
part of the time. I also had him with me at other times. T therefore 
know both the man and his reputation. Our association was so intimate 
that I felt that I knew as much of him as of any living man, and in the 
quietest conversation, as well as in any others, he always exhibits the 
Christian and the gentlemen, incapable of mean or low things. That is 
my testimony as to the facts, and I give it because I have the opportu- 
nity of knowing him on our side of the line. As to his reputation, I 
know his reputation, I know South Carolina pretty well, and I know 
that his reputation was and is, of the highest order. As an evidence of 
it, he was elected, when very young, as one of the delegates to the Gen- 
eral Conference. As a further evidence of it, Wofford College insisted 
upon giving him the degree of Doctor of Divinity, when the College was 
aware that the same degree was at his service elsewhere. I believe I 
just as well keep right straight on. To my certain knowledge, Emory 
College was ready to give the degree, and only withheld it because 
Woflford wanted to pay this mark of respect and confidence to Dr. 
Kilgo ; and that communication passed through me. I know it and 



[ 104 ] 

others could not. From end to end of our State, Dr. Kilgo's friends are 
of great number. His devotion to tiie Methodist Church is recognized, 
and his fearlessness in expressing his opinion, all are well known to us. 
It isn't a new thing at all, and the fact of the business is we love him 
the better because of these traits of character. 

Dr. K. Well, Doctor, the time he was called to Wofford College, what 
was the general condition of the College, and the feeling of the friends 
about that condition? 

Dr. W. There was a great deal of apprehension. The work was 
regarded as requiring unusual ability. Very distinctly I remember 
speaking to him, just after his appointment, a brotherlv word of sym- 
pathy, assuring him of that fact, and at the same tinie expressing to 
him my appreciation of the tremendous work that had been laid upon 
him. The condition of the College and the condition of things in our 
State, required for success a high order of ability and an unstinted and 
unceasmg devotion. Both these conditions Dr. Kilgo met. 

Dr. K. The work he did for Wofford, is it generally recognized as suc- 
cessful ? 

Dr. W. O, yes, indeed. 

Dr. K. He was once Professor in the College, was he not-? 

Dr. W. Yes, sir. After being agent for a little while he was elected 
also to a Professorship, ^^is Chair was mixed He had really some of 
the President's work. A responsible Chair. It was the Chair of Phil- 
osophy and Economy. 

Dr. K. Did you have any opportunity to observe his work as Professor, 
or hear from the students ? 

Dr. W. From the students, yes. I did not visit his class rooms. I only 
knew from meeting him his enthusiasm for his branches. But the boys 
believed in him. They were enthusiastic over him, and are now so. 

Dr. K. Did you ever hear that lie was a failure as a Professor ? 

Dr. W. All that is nonsense, sir. Never heard of such a. thing. 

Dr. K. Did you ever hear that he was a failure as preacher or as agent 
of the College ? 

Dr. W. No, sir; never a failure in anything that he undertook to do, 
from first to last. The work changed, but it was a distinguished success. 

Dr. K. From your general knowledge of his record, do you take him 
as a man that is purchaseable ? 

Dr. W. No, sir. I have already spoken of what I know of the man, 
and I know that is not, and cannot be, true. 

Dr. K. Well, how about his reputation as a ward politician in South 
Carolina ? 

Dr. W. Nothing of the kind, sir. 

Dr. K. He had no such reputation in your State ? 

Dr. W. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Would you be surprised to hear that he was a Fourth Ward 
politician during his ministry in South Carolina ? 

Dr. W. I would; and 1 should think that any one who should have the 
audacity to make such a charge was not only talking without foundation, 
but lacked the elements which go to make up a good man. 



[ los ] 

Dr. K. Did you know him during his laboi or stay in Tennessee ? 

Dr. W. Dr. Kilgo never resided in Tennessee. I can testify to that 
directly. 

Dr. K. Do you know the full name of the President of Trinity College ? 

Dr. W. Yes, sir; John Carlisle Kilgo. 

Dr. K. He is the man about whom you have been talking ? 

Dr. W. He is. 

Dr, K. Are you related to him ? 

Dr. W. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Is there any family connection ? 

Dr. W. None in the world. 

Dr. K. Do you travel much in South Carolina now, Dr. Wilson ? 

Dr. W. Yes, sir, from end to end. My duty as Editor calls for that. 

Dr. K. Since he has left your State, are you prepared to State that his 
reputation abides as you stated ? 

Dr. W. Yes, sir. • 

Dr. John O. Wilson was then cross-examined by Rev. G. A. Oglesby, 
prosecutor, and testified as follows: 

Mr. Oglesby: You say you are Dr. Kilgo's personal friend, and fond 
of him ? It's not your personal love for him that causes you to give this 
evidence ? 

Dr. Wiiyi^SON: No, sir; I do not always agree with him in opinion. 

Mr. O. You speak of his being elected to the General Conference at an 
early age. Might that not be used to indicate that he was a politician ? 

Dr. W. No, sir. His devotion to Wofford was so great then — his pulpit 
and platform ability are so marked — that it would have been a little un- 
natural if he had been thought of in that respect. You see, the election 
of the General Conference was in December, '93. Well, he had been 
about four years in the Agency, maybe more; I have not attempted to re- 
fresh my mind, because I just felt it hardly necessary. His Agency for 
the College began about '89, and he had an opportunity to make an im 
pression, and he made it. 

Mr. O- Was he not regarded as a rash and imprudent man ? 

Dr. W. He was regarded as a fearless and outspoken man He was 
regarded as being more fearless at times than other people would. 

Mr. O. Did he not do some things that would render him unpopular? 

Dr. W. His very rapid advancement and his fidelity^ to duty would 
make some people not admire him as much as he merited. I suppose 
you might name people over here of that sort. A man of unusual force 
and convictions, and with courage to express them, and devotion to duty, 
would run across some people who would not like him. Some people 
did not like some of his points, especially in his advocacy of Christian 
education. ^ Those people don t enjoy a strong presentation of what I sup- 
pose most of us regard the correct opinion. 



[ 106 ] 

After cross-examination, the witness was further examined by the de- 
fence, Dr. John C. Kilgo, as follows: 

'Dr. Kii^GO: I wish to ask you this question: Do you think the people 
would welcome Dr. Kilgo back to the South Carolina Conference ? 

Dr. Wili^SON: Yes, sir, with open arms. 

Dr. K. Was he recognized in South Carolina as a wire-puller ? 

Dr. W. No, sir. 

Dr. K. When he was elected to the General Conference, was he much 
with you prior to that election ? 

Dr. W. Yes, sir, a great deal. 

Dr. K. Was there any amount of confidence between you and him ? 

Dr. W. I have already said so. 

Dr. K. Did you hear him at anj' time say anything which intimated 
that he expected to go to the General Conference ? 

Dr. W. He expressed himself as if he did not care to go, but was anx- 
ious for the delegation to consist of good, safe men: but not even in behalf 
of any others did he descend to anything like wire-puHing. 

Dr. K. You were at that General Conference in Memphis; did he at- 
tempt there to achieve an end by any political or wire-pulling means? 

Dr. W. No, sir; his service there was of a remarkably quiet nature; had 
very little to say; nothing on the Conference floor. 

Dr. K. Were you with him also closely at that Conference ? 

Dr. W. Yes, in the same room. 

Dr. K In your knowledge of him, is he a man who confides his work, 
etc. , to his friends ? 

Dr. W. Yes. 

Were you a member of the recent Conference which met in Bal- 

Yes, sir. 

Did you have any association with President Kilgo there ? 

Yes, sin 

Was there any talk of his being elected to a connectional office ? 

Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. I wish you would tell us about that. 

Dr. W. With reference to the Missionary Secretaryship, now this is my 
judgment, and based upon three terms of service in the General Confer- 
ence: It is that it would have been easily possible for Dr. Kilgo to have 
been elected one of our Missionary Secretaries. He was spoken of in 
many directions (I need not name them) outside of North Carolina or 
South Carolina. However, I don't mind naming them. He was spoken 
of from Georgia. Baltimore and other points. He received votes as 
Bishop, 13 on the first ballot. 

Mr. Tyre: How about your Educational Secretaryship ? 

Dr. W. I had never thought of that office as a desirable one, and would 
have kept him out of it if I could. According to my judgment, it was 



Dr. 


K. 


timore ? 


Dr. 


W. 


Dr. 


K 


Dr. 


W. 


Dr. 


K. 


Dr. 


W. 



[ 107 ] 

easily possible for Dr. Kilgo to be elected to the Missionary Secretary- 
ship. Everything was looking towards it. The fact is that he was in the 
minds of the leading influential men, and as I was his close friend I took 
occasion to talk to him about it. I remember very distinctly that con- 
versation, which he never expected to be named here or elsewhere. But 
after hearing all, he was silent for a while, and in a tone indicating sin- 
cerity, he said his duty lay b ick at Trinity and in North Carolina. Said 
something like this: that he appreciated, as any man must, the oppor- 
tunity which the possibility of such a position would bring, but that he 
thought he could do a work here that was needed badly by the church, 
and he asked his friends not to consider him with reference to the Mis- 
sionary Secretaryship. Some of them said, " Well, we will vote for you 
anyway." But it is a fact that his decision tied the bands of persons who 
would have been able to influence the few other votes which were neces- 
sary for the election; and it was his decision that he had to come back 
here that, in my judgment, turned the matter away. We have not had 
any conference at all, and I do not know whether he wanted the matter 
named or not. But this is one among many things, and I think it is best 
for you to know it. If he bad been a wire-puller or politician of any 
sort, or even a little more ambitious than he is, all he had to do then was 
to sit quiet, and I am afraid you would not have had your President. Of 
course an election is an uncertain thing, but that is my judgment. With 
the discouragement of the idea which went out with the decision, sin- 
cerely expressed, even with that he received 30 votes, and the man elected 
got 40, and if he had led on from that he would have gotten it. 

Attest: (Signed) John O. W11.SON. 

A. P. Tver. 

Dr. Creitzherg^s Deposition, 

Dr. H. P. Creitzberg, being duly sworn, was examined and cross-exam- 
ined, and gave the following testimony: 

EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENCE, DR. JOHN C. KII,GO. 

Dr. Kii,GO: What are your initials? 

Dr. Creitzberg: H. F. 

Dr. K. Where is your residence ? 

Dr. C. Charlotte. 

Dr. K. What pursuit do you follow ? 

Dr. C. Minister of the Gospel. 

Dr. K. In what Church? 

Dr. C. Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

Dr. K. That is in the Western North Carolina Conference ? 

Dr. C. It is. 

Dr. K. Have you always been a member of that Conference? 

Dr. C. No, only five and a half years now. 

Dr. K. Where were you prior to that ? 

Dr. C. In South Carolina. 

Dr. K. How long were you in South Carolina ? 

Dr. C. I was born there. 



[ 108 ] 

Dr. K. How long a member in the Conference ? 

Dr. C. About 19 years. 

Dr. K. Do you know the President of Trinity College ? 

Dr. C. I do. 

Dr. K. What is his name ? 

Dr. C. Dr. John C Kilgo. 

Dr. K. Did you know him during his ministry in South Carolina ? 

Dr. C. I did, during his stay at Rock Hill and since. 

Dr. K. Were you a member of the Conference when he joined ? 

Dr. C. I was. 

Dr. K. Did you have an office in the South Carolina Conference ? 

Dr. C. Yes, J was Secretary six years before leaving. 

Dr. K. What were your leading appointments, what class ? 

Dr. C. I began one year on the Camden Creek Circuit, then Camden 
Station, Anderson Station, King Street, Charleston, Sumter Station, New- 
berry Station, Chester Station, Washington Street, Columbia, and then 
was transferred. 

Dr. K. Have you known President Kilgo since you have been in North 
Carolina ? 

Dr. C. I wanted to say this much, that he was Assistant Secretary in 
the South Carolina Conference when I was Secretary. He and I were 
rooming together. It was then that the Financial Agent of Wofford Col- 
lege was to be selected m the place of Dr. Coke Smith, who had been one 
of our most prominent and successful men in every way, and I think it 
but due Dr. Kilgo, that I should say when his name was proposed for 
that position it came to him like a clap of thunder. He kept me awake 
nearly half the night having chills and irregularities of the heart, that I 
had almost to scold him, and I told him it was just the stepping on the 
first round of the ladder, and he would soon be at the top. He did not 
even decide that night, and I don't know that he ever would have ac- 
cepted, and the Bishop appointed him. I was considerably exercised 
when the list of appointments was being read, where he was going. His 
career at WofiFord I considered very brilliant, and if you take the records 
of Wofford College you will find that the largest number of students at 
any time during its history was gathered during his administration as 
Financial Agent, and the first time since the war that the entire salaries 
of the professors were paid was during his Agency. Bishop Duncan and 
Dr. Coke Smith were his predecessors, and from my observation in every- 
thing, and I say it freely and without fear of contradiction, and not to 
disparage his predecessors, while they were successful, he was more so. 

Dr. K. Did President Kilgo have any difficulty in entering the South 
Carolina Conference ? 

Dr. C. Not a bit. 

Dr. K. What is his general reputation among the people ? 

Dr. C. I have only heard one opinion. After he became prominently 
thrust out his reputation was first-class in every particular, on the plat- 
form, in the pulpit, as a man ; and I want to say as a friend I have known 
him ever since the night spoken of, and I have never known him to be 



[ 109 ] 

anything but a true gentleman, worthy of every confidence, a man of 
honor and integrity. I have never known him to stoop to entertain a 
mean thing. 

Dr. K. Do you think that the charge of sycophancy would meet with 
approval in South Carolina? 

Dr. C. I cannot for one moment, the last man in the world for such a 
charge to be made against. 

Dr. K. Did you know anything about him in his pastorate ? 

Dr. C. Something. 

Dr. K. How did he stand as a pastor? 

Dr. C. Well in every respect. The only friction that I have ever heard 
in his pastorate — well two: one was when he decapitated the mayor of a 
town, who opposed him in prohibition, and at Rock Hill, a very strong 
Presbyterian stronghold. I believe if he had stayed there a year longer 
he would have gotten about one- fourth of the Presbyterians in the Meth- 
odist Church. 

Dr. K. Did you know anything of his reputation as professor at Wof- 
ford College? 

Dr. C. Yes sir. I attended the commencements there very frequently, 
and not only would hear voluntary statements but would ask questions. 
I did not know any man in the college that was more popular among the 
students. 

Dr. K. Was his reputation in South Carolina that of a ward politician 
and wire-puller? 

Dr. C. I would just say when I read that in the paper I said "That man 
will have a hard thing to do to prove that." That was the first time I 
had ever heard it. 

Dr. K. You said while ago that you had known him since he had been 
in North Carolina, Have you run upon the reputation of his being a 
wire-puller in this State ? 

Dr. C. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Did you know Dr, Kilgo when he was in Tennessee ? 

Dr. C. No, sir, I never knew him outside of South Carolina, except 
when he came to North Carolina. I think he went to the mountains 
some times for recreation. 

Dr. K. What was his reputation as a worker ? 

Dr. C. First class, sir. I have heard a great many of his friends say he 
was burning himself out and living too fast. They have remonstrated 
time and again. 

Dr. K. Are you related to him in any way ? 

Dr. C. No, sir; I would be proud if I were. 

Dr. K. So there is nothing that would Qiake you have personal interest 
in him ? 

Dr. C. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Did you know his father ? 

Dr. C. O, very well, indeed. 

Dr. K. What was your general knowledge of his character. 

Dr. C. Unimpeachable. 



[ no-] 



Dr. K. Was he a man of conviction and action ? 

Dr. C. Yes, sir; I have always known that he was the compendium of 
law. He had to act very frequently in the capacity of prosecutor for the 
church. A man of precious memory. 

Dr. K. Do you think President Kilgo a man who can be influenced by 
gratuities of monetary kind, etc ? 

Dr. C. I do not, sir. 

Dr. Creitzberg was then cross-examined by Rev. G-. A. Oglesby, prose- 
cutor, and testified as follows: 

Mr. OgIvESBY: How long do you say you have known Dr. Kilgo? 

Dr. Creitzberg: Well, ever since he joined the Conference; and soon 
after, I think a year or two, he knocked at the doors of the Conference. 

Mr. O. Did he not manage his work in such a way that he might beget 
the impression that he was a wire puller? 

Dr. C. No, sir. 

Mr. O. Did he not have some reputation as being ambitious or self- 
seeking ? , I 

Dr. C. No, sir. 

Mr. O. Do you know the fact that he never lived in Tennessee? 
r Dr. C. I do. Let me add, when I first came over here I would return 
to South Carolina half dozen times a year, and being under the impres- 
sion that I first named him for the Presidencv of Trinity College, many 
of the South Carolina people said I did a bad thing when I did it. I knew 
he was the very man for the Presidency of the College. 

Mr. O. You speak of his raising a great deal of money down there. Is 
it not understood generally that a man has to be somewhat of a trickster 
to get money ? 

Dr. C. No, sir. 

Mr. O. He is a good man to get people together and raise money ? 

Dr. C. Yes. 

Mr. O. Did he not sometimes use questionable methods ? 

Dr. C. No, sir, he did not. 

Mr. O Is not the very fact of his popularity and success an evidence 
that he was a shrewd wire-puller ? 
Dr. C. No, sir, I should not think so. 

^ Mr. O. Is it not possible that a wire-pulling politician could be popular 
with the pupils of a college ? 

Dr. C. In this instance I know there could have been nothing of the 
kind. I have never in all my life experienced the time as we had while 
sitting in Wofford College chapel when the degree of D. D. was conferred. 
The applause would seem at least a minute in length. 

Mr. O. His father was a Methodist preacher, was he? 
Dr. C Yes. 

Mr. O. A man of just ordinary ability ? 

Dr. C. A man of fine ability. He had one of the finest minds of the 
preachers of the Conference. ^ 

Attest:- (Signed) H. F. CreitzbeRG. 

A. P. Tver. 



[ 111 ] 

JOT. T, Basses Deposition, 

Mr. H. J. Bass, being duly sworn, was examined and cross-examined, 
and gave the following testimony : 

EXAMINATION BY DEFENCE, DR. JOHN C. KILGO. 

Dr. KiLGO : Where is your home? 

Mr. Bass: My home is in Durham. 

Dr. K. Have you ever had any official connection with Trinity College? 

Mr. B. Yes, sir, I was Secretary of the Board for several years till 
last year. 

Dr. K. Were you a member of the Board when President Kilgo was 
elected? 

Mr. B. I was. 

Dr. K. Do you know anything about the movements of the Board in 
his election? 

Mr. B. Yes, sir. The Board needed a President. Dr. Kilgo's name 
had been mentioned in connection with the office, and the committee of 
four, of which I was one, was appointed to go to Spartanburg to see Dr. 
Kilgo. 

Dr. K. Did you go with that committee? 

Mr. B. I did. 

Dr. K, Did you see Dr. Kilgo on that trip? 

Mr. B. I did. 

Dr. K. Did you talk with him or the committee about the Presidency 
of Trinity College? 

Mr. B. I did. 

Dr. K. Did he seem over anxious to come to North Carolina? 

Mr. B. He did not impress me that way at all. 

Dr. K. Did he impress you as an insincere man in any way in your 
dealing with him? 

Mr. B. He did not. 

Dr. K. Well, while you were in Spartanburg looking into this matter, 
did you consult with any one around Spartanburg, who knew Dr. Kilgo? 

Mr. B. The committee consulted Dr. Carlisle, the President of Wof- 
ford College 

Dr. K. Did you consult him in the presence of Dr. Kilgo? 

Mr. B. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Did Dr. Carlisle seemed disposed to talk freely and frankly 
with you gentlemen? 

Mr. B. He did, very much so. 

Dr. K. What was the impression made upon your mind as to Dr. Car- 
lisle's opinion of President Kilgo? 

Mr. B. Well, when we arrived at Dr. Carlisle's house in the forenoon 
of the day we arrived in Spartanburg, he told us that of course he under- 



[ 112 J 

stood our mission there. He approached the subject in a very grave 
and dignified manner, was very careful and guarded in what he said, 
and to sum up the whole matter, he said, "We at Wofford College can 
ill afford to give up Professor Kilgo ; but I recognize the fact that the 
position you gentlemen come here to offer him is a better and a broader 
one than we have here, and I would be untrue to myself and untrue to 
my friends if I did not tell you the whole truth, and that is that I 
believe him to be thoroughly competent to do the work you have for 
him to do. As well as I can recall the conversation, that is the sum and 
substance of it. Of course this conversation lasted for some little time, 
but that is the gist of it. Dr. Carlisle said, furthermore, that Professor 
Kilgo was called an aggressive speaker and preacher, and known to cit- 
izens here in North Carolina as well, if not better, than I did. He 
thought Dr. Kilgo eminently the man we wanted. I also remember 
that after getting home and before the Board was called together to 
take action on the report of this committee, that I, as Secretary of the 
Board, received a letter from Dr. Carlisle, which I regret that I have not 
now. I suppose that it is with the archives of the College. All I can 
say is that it is a very fine letter, and one which Dr. Kilgo may be justly 
proud of. 

Dr. K. Well, did you hear anything of his reputation in South Carolina 
as to his being a wire-puller and ward politician ? 

Mr. B. Nothing of the kind. 

Dr. K. Dr. Carlisle said nothing to you about this ? 

Mr. B. Nothing at all. 

Dr. K. Do you think Dr. Carlisle dealt frankly with you all ? 

Mr. B. I would stake my life on that. 

Dr. K. You talked with him about the scholarship of Dr. Kilgo? 

Mr. B Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Did he deal frankly with you in that matter ? 

Mr. B. Perfectly so. 

Dr. K. Have you known Dr. Kilgo since he has been in North Carolina? 

Mr. B. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K In your observation of him, have you been led to regard him 
as a politician and wire-puller ? 

Mr. B. No, I have not; and I want to put in right there that I have 
always congratulated myself that I was one of the committee to visit Dr. 
Kilgo at Spartanburg, and I would say more so to-night than I ever have 
done before. 

Dr. K. Did you hear the speech which Dr. Kilgo delivered on Mr. 
Duke's porch ? 

Mr. B. Yes, sir; I was standing right by his side when the boys called 
him. He went up on the steps and made his little address. I was not 
more than six or eight feet from him 

Dr. K. Well, do you recall his saying, "My Lord Duke, give us money 
and your name shall be exalted above all names?" 

Mr. B. He did not use such language. He did not say anything that 
approximated such. 



[ 113 ] 



Dr. K. Going back just a minute to that Spartanburg matter. Did you 
all consult with Dr. Kilgo or Dr. Carlisle first ? 

Mr. B. Dr. Carlisle first. 

Dr. K. Was Dr. Kilgo ever your pastor ? 

Mr. B. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. How did you find him as a pastor ? 

Mr. B. I found him very faithful and true. 

Dr. K. What is his general bearing in the city of Durham as he goes 
among the people? 

Mr. B. Why, he is perfectly frank and open and approachable. I don't 
think he has an enemy in town. I don't see how he could have, from my 
point of view. He does not deserve to have. 

Dr K. Has he a reputation in Durham of being a meddler with other 
people's affairs ? 

Mr. B. By no means. 

Dr. K. What is his bearing towards the poor and humble people, as you 
have been able to observe ? 

Mr. B Well, I think he is in full sympathy with them. His heart 
seems to go out to them. He does not hold himself aloof from them. 

Dr. K.. Are you related to President Kilgo in any way ? 

Mr. B. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Well, have you any personal interest in him ? 

Mr. B. I have a very deep one. 

Dr. K. Does that personal interest in Dr. Kilgo influence you in any 
way in regard to the truth ? 

Mr. B. No, sir. 

Mr Bass was then cross-examined by Rey. G. A. Oglesby, Prosecutor, 
and testified as follows: 

Mr. Oglesby: You say you went to Spartanburg on the committee. 
You notified him of your going, and he fixed up to receive you and to 
make a good impression on you ? 

Mr. Bass: Brother Tyer sent a delegation to Spartanburg to know if 
Dr. Kilgo was there, and if he could see him. He was not fixed up any 
more than common. Take his measure now and you will see him as we 
saw him. 

Mr. O. Did it appear to you that his being p'lainly clad was the trick of 
a politician, and that he was a cheap man ? 

Mr. B. No, to be very frank with you, the political idea did not occur 
to me at all. I presume I was very obtuse and dull. 

Mr. O. Did not Dr. Carlisle make the impression on your mind that it 
would be a relief to the people there to transfer him ? 

Mr. B. No, but quite to the contrary, as I have stated. 

Mr. O. You said, Bro. Bass, that he did not use the language quoted at 
Bro. Duke's. Can you tell what he did say ? 

Mr. B. No, sir, I can't tell it verbatim. I was too full for utterance, 
and I was so full that I could not contain much more that night. But he 



[ 114 ] 

said just what I thought was right at the time. He made a happy little 
address, nothing in the world approaching those spurious extracts of his 
speech. He eulogized Mr. Duke. 

Mr. O Did you hear him say anything like "North Carolina was first 
in the first battle," etc.? 

Mr. B. Yes, sir, he alluded to the Mecklenburg Declaration, first at 
Bethel and at Cardenas, and may have said that Mr. Duke was the great- 
est educational philanthropist in the South. 

Mr. O. Well, did he not go on to say that all these things that we call 
great, were insignificant in the presence of the great W. Duke ? 

Mr. B. He did not say that. I am quite sure he did not say anything 
of the kind. He said nothing that impressed me that way. He spoke of 
his great philanthropy, but in no such way as you suggest. 

Mr. Bass was then turther questioned by Dr. Kilgo. 

Dr. Kii,Go: You seem to have been somewhat intimate with Dr. Kilgo. 
What is his political platform ? 

Mr. Bass: O, I never talked politics with Dr. Kilgo. I know that he 
voted in the last election for Mr. Southgate. He voted his ticket, called 
the National Prohibition Ticket I heard that it was current talk over 
town that he voted the Prohibition ticket. 

Dr. K. What position does that National Prohibition Party take on the 
Money question ? 

Mr. B. It was the free and unlimited coinage of silver. 

Dr. K. Do you know what position it took on the liquor question? 

Mr. B. It was very dry. 

Dr. K. What position did it take on the railroads and telegraphs. 

Mr. B. Believed in Government ownership. 

Dr. K. And you say that Dr. Kilgo voted that ticket ? 

Mr. B. I have been so informed authoritatively. 

Dr. K. He was pastor of your church. Did you ever hear him preach 
Gold-bug doctrine from his pulpit ? 

Mr. B. If he ever preached Gold-bug doctrine, it was when I was not 
there. 

Dr. K. Well, has he the reputation around in the city of a man trying 
to promulgate any political doctrine ? 

Mr. B. Not at all. 

Mr. OgIvESBy: Bro. Bass,. is it not one of the tricks of a politician not 
to define himself very clearly ? 

Mr. B. Well, that depends. Sometimes they have to come out flat- 
footed, and sometimes it is better to be a little evasive. 

Mr. O. Well, from what you know of Dr. Kilgo, do you not think that 
he is a man that might pursue that course ? 

Mr. B. No, I think he is the surest man to pursue a different course. 
There is no chance of misunderstanding Dr. Kilgo on any question. He 
is emphatic and of decided opinion. He would not straddle any fence. 



[ 115 ] 

Dr. K. I would like to ask you this question: During^ vrur Membership 
on the Board of Trustees, were you ever i'Dpresseri wLlu the fact that the 
Messrs. Duke were dominating the polirv of \)i. Kilgo in running the 
College ? 

Mr. B. No, sir; but o i u.j .x-aLrary, I wish to say emphatically that 
they did not domhiae the policy of the College. 

Dr. K. Well, from your knowledge of those men, or have you any de- 
gree of knowledge of those men ? 

Mr. B. Yes, sir; I think I may say I have an intimate knowledge of 
those men. 

' Dr. K Well, have you been led to think that they want to rule the 
Coile^^e for political purposes, or any other personal purpose ? 

Mr. B. No, sir. My firm conviction is that their only purpose is to do 
^ood. I have known the Messrs. Duke in the church for the past nine 
or ten years, andhave been in the counsels of the church with them, and 
I know it to be a fact, that they do not dominate the church or the college. 
I refer to the Main Street Church. I have heard Mr. Ben Duke say that 
while he and his family were the largest contributors to the church funds 
in the matter of dollars and cents, that they were not actually the largest 
contributors, and that the humblest and poorest member of that church 
had as much right to be heard as they did, and that it was his desire that 
they should be heard in the Board of Stewards and elsewhere. I mention 
this parenthetically to give you an idea of the real nature of the man. 
He recognized the fact that some people there who make a contribution 
of five dollars, make as large a contribution as he with eight hundred 
dollars. 

Mr. OgIvESBy: You don't mean to indicate that if Dr. Kilgo should 
make free silver speeches that he would be acceptable to the Dukes as 
President of the College ? 

Mr. B. I don't think that they are thinking about politics or the finances 
of the country in connection with Trinity College. 

Mr. O. You mean to say then that he would tolerate any doctrine that 
Dr. Kilgo might see fit to advocate politically ? 

Mr. B. That is exactly what I mean, and I say so for the reason that 
Mr. Duke is a pronounced Republican and I am a pronounced Democrat. 
We live next door to each other, we are warm personal friends, and his 
politics never bother me nor mine him. We never clash at politics, and 
I do not see why he should clash with anybody else. 

Mr. O. Is it understood that people who work for him have to vote 
as he ? 

Mr. B. No, sir; I know that some of his office force are just as strong 
Democrats as I am, and I came here from Virginia, the home of 
Democracy. 

(Signed) H. J. Bass. 

Attest: A. P. Tyer. 



[ 116 ] 
S. B. Tnrrentine* s Bvidence, 

S. B. Turrentine, having been duly sworn, was examined and cross- 
examined, and gave the following testimony : 

Dr. KiLGO : What is yojir occupation ? 

Mr. Turrentine : Minister of the Gospel. 

Dr. K. In which church? 

Mr. T. Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

Dr. K. Where are you located now? 

Mr. T. Charlotte, N. C. 

Dr. K. In what capacity? 

Mr. T. Presiding Elder of the Charlotte District. 

Dr. K. Where were you educated ? 

Mr. T. At Chapel Hill and Vanderbilt University. I took the literary 
course at the University and the theological at Vanderbilt. 

Dr. K. Have you any connection with Trinity College ? 

Mr. T. Member of the Board of Trustees. 

Dr. K. How long have you been on that Board? 

Mr. T. For several years. 

Dr. K. Were you on the Board when President Kilgo was elected? 

Mr. T. I was, sir. 

Dr. K. Did you have any connection or perform any special duty in 
connection with his election? 

Mr. T. I was on a special committee to interview him. 

Dr. K. Where did you interview him? 

Mr. T. At Spartanburg. 

Dr. K. Did he impress you then as a man hunting a job? 

Mr. T. By no means, sir. 

Dr. K. Was he extraordinarily dressed when you met him? 

Mr. T. He was not ; plain, simple attire. 

Dr. K. Did you consult with any one in the city of Spartanburg con- 
cerning his reputation, and his fitness concerning the Presidency of the 
College? 

Mr. T. Yes, with Dr. Carlisle. 

Dr. K. Will you please tell what statements he made to you? 

Mr. T. The committee met him, sir, and in a clear, frank way, he 
expressed himself in pronounced terms regarding the character and 
ability of President Kilgo. In substance he stated to us that he inferred 
that we wished facts in the case, and. to know the exact truth in the 
matter, and we assured him that we did, and he proceeded to tell his 
high opinion of President Kilgo, spoke of his integrity as a Christian 
gentleman, and of his native ability and scholarship, the remarkable 
stand that he took at Wofford College He spoke of his remarkable 
success in connection with his work in behalf of Wofford College, and 



[ 117 ] 

stated to the committee that there was only one word that expressed to 
his mind this success ; this was "phenomenal. " He spoke of Mr. Kilgo's 
radical, strong way of expressing himself, and in the rapid way in which 
he expressed these views, sometimes gave some offence to parties who 
did not fully understand his meaning, but assured the committee that 
he was sound as to his views, orthodox in principle, and in all impressed 
the committee, before part of the committee had had an interview with 
Mr. Kilgo, that he was the very man we were seeking, and wps so 
decided, going from Carlisle's house to interview formally Mr. Kilgo, 
that we were satisfied without any further investigation, and after seeing 
President Kilgo formally in a body, we were entirely convinced of his 
ability and fitness for the position. I have never seen the occasion to 
change that opinion, but I am more confirmed tonight than I have ever 
been, and am proud that I was placed on that committee. 

Dr. K. Did Dr. Carlisle impress you as a frank man. 

Mr. T. Very remarkably so. I had heard him several times when I 
was a student at Vanderbilt. I had learned to be very favorably im- 
pressed with him as a great and good man, and was impressed on this 
occasion as being a man honest and frank, and he stated in substance 
very strongly that they needed him at Wofford College, and would 
regret exceedingly to give him up, and assured us that he would not 
stand in the way of his promotion. 

Dr. K. Did he say anything to you of Dr. Kilgo having the reputation, 
of a ward politician and wire-puller in South Carolina? 

Mr. T. Not in the least, sir. 

Dr. K. Do you think that Dr. Carlisle was sincere enough to have told 
you of that if he had known it? 

Mr. T. Most assuredly so. 

Dr. K. Were you at the last commencement at Trinity College? 

Mr. T. I was, sir. 

Dr. K. Were you in the serenade of Mr. Duke the night that the 
students serenaded him? 

Mr. T. I was not. I was very tired, having been up on special com- 
mittee work. I needed rest. 

Dr. K. Your work carries you through a good part of the State. 
What is the reputation of Dr. Kilgo as a wire-puller and ward politician 
in your section of the State? 

Mr. T. He has no such reputation that I am aware of in the least. 

Dr. K. Have you seen him appear in your district before the public? 

Mr. T. I have, sir. 

Dr. K. What have been his bearings and conduct on those occasions? 

Mr. T. It has been that of a frank, earnest, Christian man, with his 
heart filled with love and faith for the great work committed to him — 
the interests of Trinity College. He was at the Charlotte District Con- 
ference a few days ago, preached to our people one night, addressed a 
large congregation on the following day, and made a most favorable 
impression on our people. 

Dr. K. Do you think they would like to have him back to their com- 
munity? 
Mr. T. Certainly, they would like to have him back at any time. 

8 



[ 118 J 

Dr. K. Has he been frank and open in telling yon of his plans and the 
workings of the College? 

Mr. T. I think he has been entirely so. 

Dr. K. Have you ever found it difficult to get any information from 
him concerning the College? 

Mr. T. Not at all. 

Dr. K. From your observation of the man and his conduct, do you 
think the charges that are brought against him by the Board of Trustees 
at the instigation of Judge Clark, generally represent the character of 
the man? 

Mr. T. No. 

Dr. K. Are you in any way related or akin to Dr. Kilgo? 
Mr. T. Not at all, that I know of. 

Dr. K. Is there any personal obligation that would bind you to him? 
Mr. T. No, sir. 

Mr. Turrentine was then cross-examined by Rev. G. A. Oglesby, and 
gave the following testimony : 

Mr. Ogi^ESBy: You say that he has not the reputation in your section 
•of the State as being a wire-puller and a ward politician. Are you not 
understood to be his personal friend, and not to be forward in speaking 
frankly about it ? Might he not have such reputation and you be inno- 
cent of it ? 

Mr. Turrentine: I have some old friends, some Chapel Hill boys, 
who frankly express themselves in regard to their views on the subject of 
education, who, I think, would not hesitate to express, at least to a degree, 
their views, so that I could infer very plainly their meanings. 

Mr. O. Could he not have such a reputation without your knowing it? 

Mr. T. I hardly see how he could have a reputation without my know- 
ing it. 

Mr. O. Does he not make the impression on some people's minds that 
he is a politician ? 

Mr. T. I think not, sir. As an instance, at our last District Conference 
one of the most acute judges of character that I have on the district, made 
the remark that he had not been clear in his mind about President Kilgo 
and his work connected with Trinity College, but stated, after having 
heard him there at the District Conference, that he had won him from the 
soul of his feet to the crown of his head. That man could not have been 
deceived by any trickery. He is a character reader and could not have 
been deceived. He was impressed with him. 

Mr. O. You did not receive any impression from Spartanburg that they 
were anxious to give him up ? 

Mr. T. No, sir, they were exceedingly loth to give him up. 

(Signed) S. B. Turrentine. 
Attest: A. P. Tyer. 

affirmation of stenographer. 

I, D. W. Newsom, the authoritatively appointed stenographer for the 
court of investigation, do hereby testify that the foregoing testimony, in 
form of deposition, is a perfect and exact copy of the approved testimony 
taken by the Commissioner. D. W. Newsom. 



[ 119 ] 
Mr. Miles Johnson^ s Deposition, 

Mr. Miles Johnson, being placed upon the witness stand, testified as 
follows, upon being examined by the defence and cross-examined by the 
prosecution: 

Dr. Kii<Go: What is your full name? 

Mr. Johnson: Miles Anderson Johnson. 

Dr. K, Where is your residence ? 

Mr. J. At Rock Hill, S. C. 

Dr. K. How long have you been living here? 

Mr. J. Since October, '59. 

Dr. K. Do you know the President of Trinity College ? 

Mr. J. I do 

Dr. K. How long have you known him ? 

Mr. J. I have known him for 24 or 26 years. 

Dr. K. Did you know him as a preacher in South Carolina ? 

Mr. J. I did. 

Dr. K. What was his reputation as far as you know ? 

Mr. J. Number one. I never have heard anything intimated detrimen- 
tal to his character. 

Dr. K. Do you think he was a scrub politician ? 

Mr. J. Never thought so; had no occasion to think so. 

Dr. K, Was that his reputation in South Carolina ? 

Mr. J. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Did you ever travel much through the State ? 

Mr. J. Yes, sir, as agent for saddles and harness. I traveled as agent 
for the Greensboro Keeley Institute. 

Dr. K. Are you akin to Dr. Kilgo ? 

Mr. J. Not at all. I will say that I am not a member of the Methodist 
church. 

The witness was then examined by Mr. Beckwith, for the prosecutor, 
and testified as follows: 

Mr. Beckwith: You say you traveled for the Greensboro Institute ? 

Mr. Johnson: I did. 

Mr. B. You are a graduate of that institute ? 

Mr. J. I am. 

Mr. B. You say that you never heard that Dr. Kilgo was a scrub poli- 
tician ? 



Mr. J. Never did, sir; never heard anything intimated in that line. 

Mr. B. Did you e 
onference affairs ? 

Mr. J. I did not. 



Mr. B. Did you ever hear that Dr. Kilgo was skillful in manipulating 
Conference affairs ? 



[ 120 ] 

Mr. B. You know nothing about his reputation among his brethren ? 

Mr. J. I know he always stood, in my estimation, exceedingly fair 
among his brethren, from their say so and from his. I have heard them 
speak of Dr. Kilgo as being a bright man. I used to be a member of the 
Methodist church in my home, and as intimate with the Methodist preach- 
ers as with those of my own church. 

Mr. B. You know nothing of any trouble with the Conference in South 
Carolina ? 

Mr. J. No, sir, (Signed) Mii.ES Johnson. 

Mr. 1/. M. Davis's Deposition, 

Mr. Davis was then introduced upon the witness stand and being ex- 
amined and re-esamined, testified as follows : 
Dr. Kii,GO: What is your full name, Mr. Davis ? 
Mr. £)avis: Luther M. Davis. 
Dr. K. Where do you reside ? 
Mr. D. Rock Hill, S. C. 

Dr. K, How long have you lived in South Carolina ? 
Mr. D. About thirty years. 

Dr. K. Do you know J. C. Kilgo, President of Trinity College ? 
Mr. D. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. How long have you known him ? 

Mr. D, I do not recollect. The first year he came on the circuit. 
Dr. K. Do you have an}^ idea when that was ? 
Mr. D. Not without referring to the minutes. 

Dr. K. Well, can you approximate it, ten, twelve, or fifteen years ? 
Something like that ? 

Mr. D. I don't know what year it was. 

Dr. K. Was it something like ten years ago ? 

Mr. D. I suppose it was. 

Dr. K. Well, did you know him intimately while pastor here ? 

Mr. D. I think I did sir. 

Dr. K. What is his reputation as far as you know, here and in the 
State ? 

Mr. D. Well, sir, I thought it was number one. I know it was when 
he was here, and I heard the same when he left. Nothing to the con- 
trary since he left. 

Dr. K. Did you know his reputation in South Carolina as a scrub pol- 
itician ? 

Mr. D. I never heard of it before. 

Dr. K. Did you ever know President Kilgo to be guilty of a low piece 
of conduct ? 

Mr. D. I never did. 

Dr. K. Do you know Judge Clarke, of North Carolina ? 

Mr. D. No. sir. 



[ 121 ] 

CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

Mr. Beckwith; Your name is Luther M.Davis? You say you have 
known Dr. Kilgo for the last ten years ? 

Mr. Davis: I think it is about that time, sir. 

Mr. B. What is your business ? 

Mr. D. Grocer. 

Mr. B. Member of this church? 

Mr. D. Yes, sir. 

Mr. B. Did you know anything of Dr. Kilgo's reputation in the South 
Carolina Conference as a wire puller and manipulator of Conferences? 

Mr. D. Never heard of it, sir. 

Mr. B. You just know that the Doctor is a man of good general char- 
acter. 

Mr. D. Yes, sir. 

Dr. Kilgo then re-examined Mr. Davis. 

Dr. KiiyGO: Do you think you would have heard of it if he had been a 
man of that character ? 

Mr. Davis: I think I would. I held a position that was very close to 
him. One of the oflBcial members of the church often went with him. 

Mr. BECKVt^iTH: Mr. Davis, this is no question as to politics. It is a 
question as to his manipulating the annual and district Conferences, of 
church affairs, not of political affairs. 

[Dr. Kilgo took exception to the statement that this is not a question 
of political affairs but of church affairs, and read Judge Clarke's charge 
that Dr. Kilgo 's reputation in South Carolina is that of a wire-pulling 
politician.] 

(Signed) h. M. Davis. 

Mr, J, B, CamphelVs Deposition, 

Mr. Campbell was examined and cross-examined, and testified as 
follows : 
Dr. Kilgo : Where is your residence? 
Mr. Campbell: Rock Hill. 
Dr. K. What are your initials? 
Mr. C. J. B. Campbell. 
Dr. K. What is your occupation? 
Mr. C. I am a minister of the Gospel. 
Dr. K. In which church? 

Mr. C. Of the South Carolina Conference, and Presiding Elder of the 
Rock Hill District. 

Dr. K. Have your duties for the past several years called you through 
a large part of the State? 

Mr. C. Yes, sir. 



[ 122 ] 



Dr. K. How long have you been a member of the South Carolina 
Conference? 

Mr. C. Thirty-nine years. 

Dr. K. Do 3^ou know John C. Kilgo, President of Trinity College? 

Mr. C. Intimately. 

Dr, K. How long have you known him? 

Mr. C. About fifteen years. 

Dr. K. Was he ever associated with you at your District Conferences, 
and around other meetings of your church? 

Mr. C. Repeatedly. 

Dr. K. What was his reputation among his brethren in the South 
Carolina Conference? 

Mr. C. As being very frank, outspoken and earnest. 

Dr. K. Did you ever hear of his reputation as a politician, ecclesiasti- 
cal or otherwise? 

Mr C. I think not. I suppose that term might be misunderstood. 
We have always looked upon him as one whose duties took him over the 
State and brought him in contact with a great many preachers, and 
whose information is more extended than possibly any other preacher 
of the Conference. 

Dr. K. Did you ever know of his trying to work appointments in the 
Conference? 

Mr. C. I never have — not in a single instance. 

Dr. K. Are you a kinsman of his? 

Mr. C. No, sir — not related at all. 

Dr. K. Do you think he would be welcomed back to South Carolina 
C®nference, if he were to return? 

Mr. C. I think everybody in the Conference would vote for his return 
to morrow. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

Mr. Beckwith : Doctor you say you are the Presiding Elder of this 
District? 

Mr. Campbell: Yes, sir. 

Mr. Beckwith : You say that you never neard Dr. Kilgo charged by 
his brethren of the South Carolina Conference as being a wire-puller? 

(Dr. Kilgo took exception to this, saying that the question is as to the 
general opinion.) 

Mr. B. Have you at different times heard different individuals in the 
Conference charge him as being a wire-puller? 

(Dr. Kilgo objected again, saying that if the general estimate which 
the South Carolina Conference placed upon him it would beJUall right. ) 

Mr. Beckwith : I say is it not the current opinion in the Conference 
that he is a skillful manipulator of church affairs? 

Mr. Campbell: I do not think so. His position brought him in co n 
tact with a great many of his brethren, and gave him information of 
Conference matters and made him familiar with other facts which many 



[ 123 ] 

brethren were not familiar with, and out of that persons might have 
drawn the conclusion that he was interested, but as far as I know and 
have reason to believe, such was not the case. 

Mr. Beckwith: Was it not currently rumored in the South Carolina 
Conference, that Dr. Kilgo, in combination with Dr. Willson and others, 
attempted to manipulate Conference affairs? 

Mr. Campbell: I don't think so. I never heard of Dr. Kilgo and Dr. 
Willson uniting to manipulate Conference affairs. 

Mr. Beckwith : Was there not an under-current to that effect? 

Mr. Campbell : I don't think so ; I have never heard them charged 
with such, nor do I think the general impression throughout the Con- 
fereiice is to the effect that these two brethren manipulated the affairs 
of the Conference. 

Mr. Beckwith: How about the trial to manipulate them? 

Mr. Campbell : Well, I embraced that in my statement. A man who 
would try to do a thing would be charged with having done it I have 
never heard of it any further than I would try to manipulate affairs 
myself. Ministers of prominence in the Conference are forced to dis- 
cuss Conference questions, as I am forced to do f requenty ; but it has no 
bearing at all upon the manipulation of Conference affairs. So that I 
say without reservation, that he and Dr. Willson have not been charged 
with the manipulation of our Conference affairs. 

RE-DIRECT. 

Dr. Kilgo : You still maintain that the reputation of Dr. Kilgo was 
not that of a wire-puller and scrub politician among his brethren? 

Mr. Campbell : I think not, sir. 

Dr. Kilgo : Do you know Rev. J. W. Daniel of your Conference' 

Mr. Campbell: Yes. sir. 

Mr, J, G, Anderson^ s Deposition. 

Mr. J. G. Anderson, being duly sworn and placed upon the stand, tes- 
tified as follows : 

Dr. Kilgo: What are your initials ? 

Mr. Anderson: J. G. 

Dr. K. Where do you reside ? 

Mr. A. In Rock Hill. 

Dr. K. What is your business ? 

Mr. A. In the buggy business; manufacturer of buggies. 

Dr. K. Connected with the Rock Hill Buggy Co.? 

Mr. A. Yes, sir; manager. 

Dr. K. Do you know President Kilgo of Trinity College ? 

Mr. A. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. How long have you known him ? 

Mr. A. Since 1885 or '86. 



[ 124 J 

Dr. K. What is his reputation in South Carolina, as you have been able 
to learn it ? Has it been good or bad ? 

Mr. A. Good. 

Dr. K. Have you had an opportunity to learn his reputation ? 

Mr. A. Well, I knew him intimately while he was pastor of this circuit* 

Dr. K. Do you travel over the State any ? 

Mr. A. Yes, sir, I do. 

Dr. K. Do you ever have any dealing with Methodist preachers ? 

Mr. A. Yes, sir, very frequently. 

Dr. K. Have you ever heard the charge that President Kilgo's reputa- 
tion is that of a scrub politician and wire-puller ? 

Mr. A. No, sir, never before. 

Dr. K. What was his record as pastor of your church ? Was it an hon- 
est record ? 

Mr. A It was. 

Dr. K. In his preaching, did he usually preach on what he thought was 
right in regard to people ? 

Mr. A. Yes. 

Dr. K. Are you akin to him ? . 

Mr. A. No, sir, 

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BECKWITH. 

Mr. B. You don't know whether or not there was a strong feeling in 
the Conference among Dr. Kilgo's brethren that he was skillful as a ma- 
nipulator and wire-puller, do you ? 

Mr. A. No, sir; I never heard of it till to-day. 

Mr. B. You don't know anything about the general opinion of the Con- 
ference ? 

Mr. A. No, sir. If there was any, I know nothing of it. 

RE-DIRECT. 

Dr. Kii^GO: Mr. Anderson, you mean by saying that you know nothing 
of it, that you have never heard it ? 

Mr. A. Yes. sir. 

Dr. K. Aren't you a prominent layman ? Don't you hold official posi* 
tion here ? 

Mr. A. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Have you had a possible chance to have heard this ? 
Mr. A. If it had been current rumor. 
Dr. K. Did Dr. Kilgo travel much through your state ? 
Mr. A. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Was he talked of much through your paper? 
Mr. A. Yes, sir; I have seen many accounts of his sermons in the paper. 

(Signed) J. G. Anderson. 



[ 125 ] 

South Carolina, York County, in the matter against John C. Kilgo, be- 
fore the Board of Trustees of Trinity College, North Carolina, at the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, in the town of Rock Hill, South Carolina, 
on the i6th day of August, 1898, the defence being present in person and 
the prosecution being represented by B. C. Beckwith, Esq., by consent of 
both parties, I, S. H. Zimmerman, proceeded to take the depositions of 
Miles Johnson, L. M. Davis, Rev. J. B. Campbell, Rev. T. C Ligon, and 
J. G. Anderson, which are herewith inclosed. The said depositions were 
taken because the persons giving them could not, in person, attend the 
trial. 

(Signed) S. H. Zimmerman. 

stenographer's affirmation. 

I hereby certify that the foregoing depositions, taken in Rock Hill, S. 
C, Aug. 16, 1898, by Rev. S. H. Zimmerman, are a correct copy of the 
original stenographic report as read to the witnesses testifying and ap- 
proved by them. 

D. W. Newsom, Stenographer. 

The Board adjourned to meet at 3 o'clock, p. m. 



[ 126 J 



Afternoon Session, Wednesday, August 31, 1898, 



The Board of Trustees met pursuant to adjournment, in Benefactor's 
Hall, at 3 o'clock p. m., President J. H. Southgate in the chair. The 
roll was called and the following were present and answered to their 
names : 

[Same members present as morning session.] 

Mr. JuRNEY : I rise to a question of personal privilege at this juncture. 
In News and Observer this morning, I find this statement: I asked Judge 
Clark to correct the statement in reference to me and he did not do 
it. Now I said hardly anything of that kind and I demand that you 
retract it. Here is what I said: I knew that injustice would be done 
by the public mind and the newspapers would make capital of it. I 
was sincere in askin • that the correction be made. I was sincere ia 
asking the Board to give Judge Clark all the time he wanted and said I 
had always had the kindest of feeling toward Judge Clarke— but I am 
always going to stand by Dr. Kilgo and Trinity College and at the 
Rockingham Circuit Conference, I said I would stand by Dr. Kilgo and 
Trinity College and fight for them till they knocked my teeth out and 
then I would chew for them with my gums. I did not tell the District 
Conference I was coming up here to fight for Kilgo, I never said a word 
about coming up here to B.ght for Kilgo. I made a speech in reference 
to my work and said that many people are enemies to Trinity College. 
I was kind and sincere in what I said about putting this matter off and 
giving you time and I ask you now, Judge, in all fairness if you will 
make this correction in the public print. 

Judge Clark: I am willing to make the correction. I do not see any 
material difference in the statements. [Judge Clark spoke so low and 
rapidly that the stenographer did not get all his remarks.] 

[The following Depositions were offered by Dr. Kilgo, 

and read:] 

Rev, W. P. Meadows^s Deposition, 

Rev. Mr. Meadows, being duly sworn, was placed upon the stand and 
testified as follows: 

Dr. Kilgo: What is your full name? 

Mr. v1ea.dow3: My name is William Paschal Meadows 

Dr. K. Where is your residence ? 

Mr. M. Charleston. 

Dr. K. What is your occupation ? 

Mr. M. Methodist preacher. 

Dr. K. What is your appointment ? 

Mr. M. Charleston District, 



[ 127 ] 

Dr. K. Do you know President Kilgo of Trinity College ? 

Mr. M. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. How long have you known him ? 

Mr. M. Since nearly the time when he was appointed Financial Agent 
of WoflFord College. 

Dr. K. In his associations with you, was he free in his expressions 
about his plans of work, etc. ? 

Mr. M. Very. 

Dr. K. Does your work carry you over any large part of the State ? 

Mr. M. Yes, sir, my work since then has carried me over a great deal 
of the State. 

Dr. K. Is the reputation of Dr. Kilgo where you go a very fine one? 

Mr. M. Yes, sir, he is considered a man of considerable activity and in- 
tegrity, and uprightness. 

Dr. K. Do you know his reputation in South Carolina as that of a wire- 
pulling, scheming man ^ 

Mr. M. No. 

Dr. K. Did you ever hear that charged as his reputation among South 
Carolina people ? 

Mr. M. I have heard some intimations of some things by parties who 
were not friendly to him, but as to his general reputation, it was not such. 

Dr. K. Was the South Carolina Conference-^lad to get rid of him when 
he left? 

Mr. M. I. should not think so. 

Dr. K. Do you think it would welcome him back ? 

Mr. M. I think so. 

Dr. K. Do you think the appointments of the Conference would be 
open to him if he were a preacher here ? 

Mr. M. Plenty of them. 

Dr. K. iiow is his work at Wofford College generally regarded, as suc- 
cessful or a failure ? 

Mr. M. I think it is regarded as a success. 

Dr. K. From your knowledge of Dr Kilgo, is he an independent, frank, 
outspoken man, or a reticient man ? 

Mr. M. I have always found him independent, frank, and outspoken. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BECKWITH. 

Mr. Beckwith: You say you have heard it charged that Dr. Kilgo 
was a minipulator of Conference affairs ? Currently reported ? 

[Dr. Kilgo protested.] 

Mr. Meadows: You could not say that it was currently charged. 

Mr. B. Has it not been largely charged by a strong element in the Con- 
ference, that he manipulated the Church affairs to his own advantage, 
and to the advantage of his friends ? Is there not a very strong and re- 
spectable element who made those charges against him ? 



[ 128 ] 

Mr. M. I do not think so. There is an element that has made those 
charges, but not a very strong nor respectable one. 

Mr. B. What is the mamerical strength, in your judgment, of those 
men who regarded Dr. Kilgo in that light ? 

Mr. M. Well, it would be very hard for a man to make any estimate of 
them. It is a crowd that works in the dark, and you can't estimate it. 

Mr. B. Has it not been currently talked at the Annual Conferences and 
other Conferences, that Dr. Kilgo, in combination with Dr. Willson, and 
the late editor of the Church paper, the Advocate, that he manipulated 
affairs to suit himself and their interests ? 

Mr. M. I have heard some such talk. 

Mr. B. So it is true then that the charge has been made,, that Dr. Kilgo 
in combination with these men, carried things his own way ? 

Mr. M. I don't know that I can made it stronger. 

RE-DIRECT. 

Dr. Kii,Go: Is that a current rumor at the Conferences, or just a few 
men talking? 

Mr. Meadows: Just a few. Rather underground talk. 

Dr. K. From your knowledge of Dr. Kilgo, do you think he would 
stoop to manipulation in a political sense, of any church affairs ? 

Mr. M. I do not. 

Dr. K. Have you ever heard of Judge Clarke ? 

Mr. M. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. When ? 

Mr. M. Well, only in the last few months. 

Dr. K. Have you had any correspondence with him ? 

Mr. M. No, sir. I would like to state, if I may, that since President 
Kilgo has been agent of Wofford College, it has been my delight to have 
him with me frequently, and whenever he has been with me, the best 
men in every sense, have given him a strong welcome and perfect ova- 
tion, and we have always welcomed his coming, and been glad to have 
him with us. I was very sorry when he left the State, and begged him 
not to go, and I know a great many others felt the same way. It may 
be that a great many thought it best for him to go, I don't know about 
that We were sorry for him to go. I did not mean to reflect upon the 
respectability of the parties alluded to above, but of the number or pro- 
portion of those who circulated the rumor. 

Dr. K. Are those men considered your leading preachers .-' 

Mr. M. No, I dont think so. Now when I said that some thought it 
best for him to go, it was because of the fine opening that he had. 

(Signed) W. P. Meadov^S. 

Sworn to before me, this the 17th day of August, 1898. 

A. H. KiRBY, Magistrate. 

I hereby certify that the above depositions are correct copies of the 
original depositions as taken by A. H Kirby, Commissioner, in the city 
of Spartanburg, S. C, Aug. 17, 1898, and as approved by each witness, 
respectively, who testified. 

D. W. Newsom, Stenographer. 



[ 129 ] 
D. R, Duncan* s Deposition. 

Major Duncan, being placed on the stand, testified as follows: 

Dr. KiLGO : Will you give us your initials? 

Maj. Duncan: D. R. 

Dr. K. Where do you reside, Major? 

Maj. D. At Spartanburg. 

Dr. K. What is your occupation? 

Maj. D. I practice law. 

Dr. K. Do you know President Kilgo, of Trinity College? 

Maj. D. I do. 

Dr. K. How long have you known him. Major? 

Maj. D. Since he was a student at Wofford College, since 1880 or 1881. 

Dr. K. Did you know him as a professor at Wofford College? 

Maj. D. I did. 

Dr. ^. Now, Major, from your knowledge of him, will you please 
state his reputation as a man? 

Maj. D. His general reputation? 

Dr. K. Yes, sir. 

Maj. D. His general reputation was that of a good man. 

Dr. K. Well, do you know that his reputation was that of a wire- 
pulling politician? 

Maj. D. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Were you a delegate to the General Conference in Memphis? 

Maj. D. Yes, sir, I was. 

Dr. K. Was President Kilgo there? 

Maj. D. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Did you see or hear anything that led you to think that he and 
Dr. Willson, and Dr. Kirkland had formed a ring to divide certain posi- 
tions in the South Carolina Conference? 

Maj. D. No, sir, nothing of that sort. 

Dr. K. Have you met Mr. Beckwith, of Raleigh? 

Maj. D. I met him this morning a little while in the office. 

Dr. K. Did he have any business with you? 

Maj. D. Well, he wanted to talk with me in a general way about this 
controversy between yourself and Judge Clark. 

i£ Dr. K. Did he seek to find any facts that you might know, bearing 
upon the charges against Dr. Kilgo? 

Maj. D. I think the inquiry was as to your character as a wire-puller, 
or manipulator, or agitator. At least wire-puller and manipulator. 

Dr. K. Did you tell him you did know something of it? 

- Maj. D. No, I told him I did not know anything of it. Anything that 
would sustain a charge of that sort. 



. [ 130 ] 

Dr. K. Had you been notified, Major, that you would be examined 
for the Board of Trustees of Trinity College? 

Maj. D. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Have you ever heard of Judge Clark? 

Maj. D. O yes; I know him personally. 

Dr. K. What is the impression that your knowledge of him or of 
hearing people talk of him has made? 

Maj. D. I don't know that I could answer that definitely. I saw much 
of the Judge at the General Conference in Memphis. I don't think I 
ever met him except there. 

Dr. K. Was Wofford College anxious to get rid of Dr. Kilgo when he 
went to Trinity? 

Maj. D. I have no reason for thinking so. I was not a member of the 
Board at that time 

Dr. K. When you were a member of the Board, did he perform his 
duties faithfully to the College? 

Maj. D. I think so. 

Dr. K. You heard no complaint? 

Maj. D. No, sir. (Signed) D. R. Duncan. 

Bishop Duncan^ s Deposition. 

Dr. KiivGo: Will you give us your full name? 

Bishop Duncan: W. W. Duncan. 

Dr. K. What is your occupation, Bishop ? 

Bishop D. Minister of the Gospel. 

Dr. K. Have you any official connection with the Southern Methodist 
Church ? 

Bishop D. Yes; Bishop. 

Dr. K. Do you know President Kilgo, of Trinity College ? 

Bishop D. Yes. 

Dr. K. How long have you known him ? 

Bishop D. I suppose twenty-two or twenty-three years, or twenty-five. 

Dr. K. Is that a letter of yours, Bishop ? (handing him a letter). 

Bishop D. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Are you willing for that to go in as testimony ? 

Bishop D. O, yes. (Letter "A" was approved by Bishop.) 

Dr. K. I wish to ask this, Bishop: Is the reputation and character^' of 
President Kilgo such that you would be willing to appoint him anywhere 
in the bounds of the^Southern Methodist Church for which his intellectual 
abilities fit^him ? 

Bishop D. I should not hesitate at all. 

Dr. K.|What is'the reputation of Rev. John O. Wilson in the South 
Carolina Conference'? 



[ 131 ] 

Bishop D. O, being a very thorough Christian gentleman; modest, un- 
assuming, unpretentious man, of very strong convictions and not afraid 
to stand by them. I never heard any whisper of anything against his 
character or reputation as not being the very best. I did not suppose 
that anybody had asked a question of such about him. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BECKWITH. 

Mr. Beckwith: Do you know Rev. T. C. Ligon ? 

Bishop D. Yes, sir. 

Mr. B. What is his standing ? 

Bishop D. He is regarded as an honest, faithful, hard working Metho- 
dist preacher. I never heard anything against his character or reputa- 
tion. He has troubled his brethren somewhat in his extreme views about 
the second blessing, and, therefore, thought to be a little fanatical. 

Mr. B. As to truth and uprightness, there is no question, then ? 

Bishop D, No, I think not. I think as a man he is sometimes biased 
by his extreme views. The most unfortunate thin'g in connection with 
the church, that they are unteachable and untractable. I don t object to 
their doctrine, but it is only the extreme view of it. 

RE-DIRECT. 

Dr. KiivGO: Bishop, do you think that Dr. Carlisle was anxious to get 
rid of Dr. Kilgo at the time he went to Trinity ? 

Bishop D. I have no reason to think so. 

(Signed) W. W. Duncan. 



Dallas, Ga., July 7th, '98. 
To Rev. J. C. Kilgo, D. D.: 

My Dear John — You see where I am. I am holding a District Con- 
ference — possibly, with church dedications, district conferences and com- 
mencements. I am trying to do more work than I should attempt. A 
man as hard worked as you are knows what the above means. I trust 
you are taking care of 3'ourself. The weather is very trying and you are 
not very strong in body. Go slow and rest awhile, as you will break 
down or suddenly end your life, and then I shall regret having consented 
to your leaving South Carolina and going to Trinity. But you have suc- 
ceeded so well that South Carolina must be satisfied to giving you up. 
You were a great loss to us. You did a good and valuable work for Meth- 
odism and WoflFord, especially the latter, and your work remains. If you 
had made no other record of faithful service than that in South Carolina 
you should be thankful for the privilege of living on the earth and labor- 
ing for your Lord and His church. 

I trust you and yours will keep well through this season. 

Love for you and all. Affectionately, 

W. W. Duncan. 

P. S. I see some reference in one of the Atlanta papers to your contro- 
versy with Judge Clark, and your being a wire-puller in South Carolina 
and politician in Tennessee. When did you live in Tennessee ? Never 
knew you spent, in all your official visits there, as much as twenty days. 
Do not let such things move you. Do your duty Those who know you 
never question your integrity. Your record in South Carolina is that of 
an earnest, faithful, hard-working Christian preacher and teacher, and 
not a "scrub politician." Pay no attention to such statements or utter- 
ances. W. W. .D 



[ 132 ] 
Prof. A, G, RemherVs Deposition. 

Prof. Rembert, bein^ duly sworn and placed upon the stand, testified 
as follows : 

Dr. KiLGO : Will you give us your full name? 

Prof. Rembert: A. G. Rembert. 

Dr. K. What is your occupation? 

Prof. R. Teaching. 

Dr. K. Where? 

Prof. R. In Wofford College, Professor of Greek. 

Dr K. Do you know President Kilgo, of Trinity College? 

Prof. R. Yes, for some years, we were in College together— a year or 
two, but lost sight of one another till my return to Wofford. From 
1888 to 1889 till middle of the summer of 1894, we were very intimately 
associated together in the canvassing work, he for the College and I for 
the Fitting School. At that time he was elected to the Presidency of 
Trinity College and our intimate association was of course severed. 

Dr. K. You say. Prof. Rembert, that you and President Kilgo can- 
vassed the State. Did you in that canvass, have an opportunity to study 
President Kilgo, and see his movements? 

Prof. R. I think rather an unusual opportunity. For this reason: 
we went to the District Conferences together and traveled on the 
trains together. We were thrown together very intimately on the 
trains, and of course, among other things, we talked very earnestly and 
fully about our work, and the plans of our work, and I should say a very 
good opportunity for becoming intimately acquainted with him. 

Dr. K. Did Dr. Kilgo usually confide his aims and undertakings to 
you, or did you think so? 

Prof. R. I was under the impression that he opened up pretty fully 
and freely his plans in reference to the College, and the workings of 
plans. In fact, we compared notes and tried to suggest to one another. 

Dr. K. From your knowledge of him, is he frank or reticent? 

Prof. R. I should say a very frank and open man. 

Dr. K. You had an opportunity then, to know his reputation in the 
State among the people, etc. Was that reputation that of a wire-pulling 
politician and trickster? 

Prof. R. I should say no. I have never had occasion to have that 
side brought directly before me, nor would I, in my acquaintance with 
him, or in my knowledge of his relation to the State, pay any attention 
to charges of that kind. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION, BY MR. BECKWITH. 

Mr. Beckwith : Has the charge been made, or have you heard it? 

Prof. Rembert : Not directly to me, I have heard them as being made 
by men in the State. 

Mr. Beckwith: But you have heard the rumor? 

(Dr. Kilgo took exceptions to this question of "rumor.") 

Mr. B. But you have heard it? 

(Dr. Kilgo took exception to the question.) 



[ 133 ] 



Prof. R. Only a rumor. I want it distinctly understood that it did not 
come to me in the shape of anything authoritative, but simply as a 
rumor. 

Mr. B. What kind of a wire-puller and manipulator? 

(Dr. Kilgo took exception to this.) 

Prof. R. I don't think I ever heard it put that way. It would be im- 
possible for me to repeat in accurate words, a vague rumor that I paid 
no attention to. I felt that it was without foundation and that the 
statement was not worth noticing. 

Mr. B. Still it was talked around? 

Prof. R. That is a broad statement. 

Mr. B. So then, you have simply heard it mentioned? 

Prof. R. Yes, sir. In a passing way. 

Mr. B. Even in hearing a mention of that kind made, did you regard 
it as by men who were friends of Dr. Kilgo's? 

Prof. R. I should say that it was just in a free and easy conversation, 
between myself and a friend, in discussing Dr. Kilgo. 

RE-DIRECT. 

Dr. Kilgo : But you say positively, . that so far as your knowlege goes, 
that is not the reputation of Dr. Kilgo in South Carolina? 

Prof. Rembert : Yes, quite positively. I want to say frankly that this 
whole examination is quite a surprise. 

Dr. K. Prof. Rembert, how is Dr. Kilgo's work at Wofford College, 
considered in the State, as you know it? 

Prof. R. Well, I should say that Dr. Kilgo was regarded as having 
done a great deal of good to and for the College, having been of consid- 
erable assistance in building it up. I am free and frank to say that I 
have heard statements made by men in the College and out, attributing 
a great deal of good to Dr. Kilgo in his work for the College. I never 
heard anybody make any statement except in favor of Dr. Kilgo and in 
praise of his work. (Signed,) A. G. Rembert. 

Rev, H. B, Brown's Deposition. 

Mr. H. B. Brown, being duly sworn, was placed upon the stand and 
testified as follows : 

Dr. Kilgo: Will you give us your full name? 

Mr. Brown: H. B. Brown. 

Dr. K. Where do you reside ? 

Mr. B. In Greenville, S. C. 

Dr. K. What is your occupation ? 

Mr. B. Minister of the Gospel, pastor of St. Paul's, Greenville. 

Dr. K. Do you know President Kilgo, of Trinity College? 

Mr, B. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. How long have you known him ? 



[ 134 ] 



Mr. B. I have known him intimately since he was elected Financial 
Agent of Wofford College, and had some acquaintance with him before 
that. 

Dr. K. What is his reputation in South Carolina ? 

Mr. B. I should say it was good; first-class. 

Dr. K. Would you think that the charge that his reputation is that of 
a wire-pulling politician in South Carolina, could be made on the facts ? 

Mr. B. No, sir. 

Dr. K. Do you know anything of his work in Wofford College ? 

Mr. B. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. How is that regarded in the State generally ? 

Mr. B. The very best kind. Dr. Kilgo. 

Dr. K. Do you think the large majority, or any considerable number of 
the members of the South Carolina Conference, were glad when he left 
the State ? 

Mr. B. No, sir. It was nothing but regret that ever I heard. 

Dr. K. Bro. Brown, what has been usually the attitude of the Holiness 
Association to the brethren who did not agree with them ? 

Mr, B. Well, sir, they were not intimate with each other, I should say, 
to put it mildly. 

Dr. K. Has there not been some friction ? 

Mr. B. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. Did you ever hear of an effort to elect Rev. J. W. Daniel editor 
of the South Carolina Advocate? 

Mr. B. Yes, I know that he has been voted for. 

Dr. K. Well, did you hear nothing of the matter before Conference 
came on ? 

Mr. B. O. yes. 

Dr. K. So that during the year was he discussed as a candidate ? 

Mr. B. Yes, sir, I should say so. During Dr. Kirkland's term — the 
last he was elected — and then when Dr. Wilson was elected to succeed 
him, and when Dr. Wilson was re-elected at our last Conference. 

Dr. K. You were approached on this question ? 

Mr. B. Yes, sir. 

Dr. K. By whom? 

[Mr. Beck with took exception to this question.] 

Mr. B. I know from my own knowledge that strong efforts were made 
to induce me to use my influence to elect Mr, Daniel, the last time that 
Dr. Kirkland was elected. 

Dr. K. Were there rumors last year concerning Dr. Willson, that looked 
to an effort of putting him out of the Advocate ? 

[Mr. Beckwith took exception to this,] 
Mr. B. O, yes. 



[ 135 ] 

Dr. K. Were those rumors connected with the efforts to elect Mr. Daniel 
editor of the Advocate ? 

Mr. B. Well, I should say in this way: The two names were prominent 
before the public, and now and then I would hear disparaging remaifa 
made about Dr. Willson's conduct of the paper as an editor. That is 
about as near as I know how to answer it. 

Dr. K. Was there not a great deal of effort made to displace Dr. Willson 
at your last Conference ? 

[Mr. Beck with objected to this.] 

Mr. B. Yes, very strong. 

Dr. K. Did not Bishop Duncan have something to say about rings at 
your last Conference, in his address ? 

Mr. B. In his opening address. I remember it, sir. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BECKWITH. 

Mr. BECKWITH: What was the character of those rumors; what were 
they based upon? 

Mr. B. Well, sir, as not being the strong man that the Conference 
needed, I should say, in general terms. 

Mr. BeckwiTh: Were there any allegations that there had been £ 
combination between Dr. Willson and Dr. Kilgo, and others? Was it 
reported or talked that there was a combination? 

[Dr. Kilgo protested.] 

Mr. B. Dr. Kilgo told me of these false rumors that were in the air. 

Mr. BECKWITH : You say false rumors; why do you say false? 

Mr, B. Because I knew the three men. 

Mr. BECKWITH : Based then upon your personal knowledge of the three 
men? 

Mr. B. Yes, from my intimate personal knowledge of fifteen or twenty 
years' standing. That neither of these three gentlemen were capable of 
doing that kind of thing. 

Mr. Beckwith: Then, in your opinion, there was no foundation for 
the statement ? 

Mr. B No, sir; so much so that, till last year, I never mentioned it to 
John O. Willson in any form, and he is my intimate friend. 

Mr. Beckwith: Have you ever heard it rumored, or heard it as geno-- 
ally or currently reported on the Conference floors, or among the other 
brethren, that Dr. Kilgo had a genius for manipulating Conference affturs? 

[Dr. Kilgo protested.] 

Mr. B. No, sir. 



Dr. Kilgo: Bro. Brown, is your work at the Conference sessrons 
as gives you prominence, and throws you actively into the business of the 
Conference ? 

Mr. B. Yes, sir, I should say so. I have reported the proceedings for 
the Southern Christian Advocate in full ever since the Advocate was 
brought back from Georgia, and for the last ten years I have reported 
them for the News and Courier. I should simply like to say this to both 



[ 138 J 

you. He was almost extravagant in his description of the reception 
given you. It seems to me that he said something about a water service 
given to you. 

Dr. K. Have you ever heard him say anything that would indicate 
that he had a different opinion since that time? 
Ans. Yes sir, 

Ik-. K. Can you tell us any tiling about that? 

Ans. Yes sir. About a year ago we were on a train together and he 
brought it up himself and knowing his feelings on the matter I have 
avoided mentioning your name where he was, because we have always 
been friends and I never like to disagree with a man when I can help it 
if it will do no good, unless I think I can change him to my side, and as 
I had no hope of that I avoided your name. But he brought it up him- 
s^ and one thing he stated was that it seemed very strange to the peo- 
ple of South Carolina that the people of North Carolina w<jre such fools 
over Kilgo. They could not understand it. That was the statement 
and it impressed me at the time as being a little different from the 
other one. 

Mr. Newsom^s Evidence. 

Dr. Kilgo : What is your full name? 
Ans. Dallas Walton Newsom. 

Dr. K. Where do you reside? 

Ans. In Durham, N. C, at Trinity College now. I live in Littletori2 

K C. 

Dr. K. Did you go with President Kilgo and Mr. Beckwith to South 
Carolina to take depositions? 
Ans. I did. 

Dr. K. Were you with him in Spartanburg? 
Ans. Yes sir. 

Dr. K. Did you see Dr. Carlisle there? 
Ans. Yes sir. 

Dr. K. Where did you see him? 

Ans. I saw him in his own private study, as Dr. Kilgo and I went in 
to talk with him. 

Dr. K. Did you hear Dr. Carlisle and Dr. Kilgo say anything about 
this controversy and his (Dr. Carlisle's) being a witness in it. 

Ans. I think a verbatim report of Dr. Carlisle is "I have no disposition 
whatever to recall or to qualify a single statement which I made to that 
committee " 

Dr. K. What committee was that M'hich you refer to ? 
Ans. It was the committee sent by the Board of Trustees of Trinity 
College — the matter about Dr. Kilgo. 

Dr. K. Was that the committee that went to look after him and to se- 
cure him for the presidency of the college in 1894 ? 
Ans. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Beckwith was then re-examined: 

Dr. Kjlgo: Will you give the Secretary your name and residence. 
Ans. B. C. Beckwith, Raleigh, N. C. 

Dr. K. Do you know Dr. John O. Wilson, of the South Carolina Con- 
ference ? 
Ans. No, sir, I have never seen him. 



[ 139 ] 



Dr. K. Do you know his general character ? 
Ans, I do. 

Dr. K. What is it, sir ? 

Ans. That of a manipulator and wire-puller. 

Dr. K. Did you not come to Durham a few weeks ago ? 
Ans. I have been here several times in the last few months. 

Dr. K. Did you not come here and see Dr. Yates ? 
Ans. I met him on the streets. 

Dr. K. Did you not ask him what he thought about this Clark-Kilgo 
matter ? 

Ans. I don't know. I had some such conversation with him. 

Dr. K. Did you not ask him the question: "What do you think of it?" 
Ans. I think so. 

Dr. K. You say you do not know Dr. John O. Wilson. 

Ans. Never heard of him except when we went to South Carolina. 

Mr. OgI/ESBy: That is the case for the prosecution. 

Mr. Chairman: Is that the close for the prosecution and for the de- 
fence. It is possible for the prosecution to make an opening speech to 
be replied to by the defence and closed by the prosecution. If the pros- 
ecution or the defence wants anything further to say, now is the time to 
make it known. 

Mr. Col,e: I want to make an inquiry as to whether any member of 
the Board of Trustees will have the privilege of addressing the Board if 
he .should desire to do so ? 

Mr. Chairman: That's what I want to have understood before we go 
further. 

Mr. Tyer: I move that after the prosecutor has had his opening and 
closing speeches and the defence has had his speech that the jury go to 
the jury room to vote, to sit alone as a jury, and that there shall be no 
other speaking except what shall be done by members of the jury in the 
jury room. 

Mr. Creasy : I second the motion. 

[The motion was carried.] 

REV. G. A. OGLESBY'S wSPEECH FOR THE PROSECUTION. 

Mr. President, and Gentlemen of the Board of Trustees : 

I do not feel that I am able in any special sense to put this case before 
you in any other shape .than you already have it. There is not a man 
here any less able to weigh conclusions than myself. While I come to 
you without any apology, my purpose in wishing to make only one 
speech was to save time. 

I wish to preface what I have to say by the statement that the prose- 
cutor, so far as he is concerned, has endeavored to keep inside of the 
lines fixed by your Board; to present no evidence except such as bore 
upon the specific charges and no evidence except that in the form of 
depositions, where the parties could not be present to testify, and after 
both parties were duly notified of the time and place. 

Now, I wish to say further that the prosecution has no grounds of com- 
plaint. We have had plenty of latitude and have used it. We have gone 
over the ground and done our best so far as I have been able to observe. 
Of course it is claimed and unquestioned, so far as I know, that there are 



[ 140 ] 

parties who claim to know things, who refused to give us the benefit of 
them, but we have brought to you the result of our findings and in legal 
form. You observe that there is no testimony presented to support 
charges of his residency in Tennessee. If we sustain one or more of the 
charges I shall ask a verdict of guilty. 

One of the specifications is that he is a wire-puller and trickster of the 
ward politician type. We ask a verdict of guilty at this point upon the 
testimony of Mr. Boone and Mr. Beckwith and Mr. Gattis and Mr. Ligon, 
and also upon the testimony of Dr. Kingsbury, who puts before you a 
message which he received through the hands of Mr. Crews, in which 
message there was a statement that he (Dr. Kilgo) had the preachers with 
him and had the medicine for him (Dr. Kingsbury), — in other words that 
he had the people whom he could manipulate and that he was going to 
manipulate them. Mr. Boone testified that he knows the general char- 
acter of Dr. Kilgo in Spartanburg. Of course that does not include the 
whole of South Carolina, but that is in South Carolina and goes to sup- 
port the just contention that his reputation was that of a wire-puller. 
Mr. Boone stated emphatically in his examination and cross-examination 
that that was his reputation in the town of Spartanburg. Mr. Beckwith 
who in half dozen or more places, stated that after conference with several 
men, he found that to be his reputation. Mr. Gattis, who has traveled 
in that Conference in the colportage work, makes the same statement, 
that his general reputation there is that of a wire-puller, and I quoted the 
exact language in the bill of indictment You heard the deposition of 
Mr. Ligon, in which he was not so strong in his language as these gen- 
tlemen, and yet he said that Dr. Kilgo had such reputation among his 
brethren, and that he was understood by a great many, to be a manipu- 
lator of Conference affairs. 

The prosecution contends also that the presence of so many resolutions 
in the papers is evidence of Dr. Kilgo's skill as a manipulator, because 
each District Conference at which he has been present has passed resolu- 
tions endorsing him. 

You will see also that in the testimony which the defense brings, Prof. 
Rembert admits that there is a vague rumor that Dr. Kilgo was something 
of a manipulator. Mr. Brown admits that there was some friction be- 
tween the Holiness and other brethren in the South Carolina Conference, 
and that Dr. Kilgo was involved in this friction. The prosecution also 
contends for a verdict of guilty in the charge of sycophancy. We rely 
upon the testimony of Mr. Council, who brings to you and read to you 
in your presence, a clipping from the Durham Sun, containing a report 
of Doctor Kilgo's speech, while he made it, and while that is disputed 
by a number of witnesses of the highest character, we claim that Mr. 
Council has the best right to know because he put down what was said, and 
any man who writes down on the spur of the moment, while his memory 
is fresh, the report of a man's speech, has the advantage of one who 
waits some time afterward. And these brethren had to recall what was 
said, after the matter was called to their attention, and Mr. Council says 
emphatically, that he quoted Dr. Kilgo correctly at the point, "greater 
than all these." So that he put Mr. Duke above all else that North Car- 
olina had ever achieved ; of all things that belong to her, and of 
which she boasts, the greatest of all her productions is the Mr. W. Duke. 
That is the inevitable conclusion. And then you bear in niind that it is 
in evidence and not disputed ; that he said more than that ; for instance, 
''Here is the President's house, etc.," and we insist upon a verdict of 
guilty at this point also. 



[ 141 ] 



PRESIDENT KONGO'S DEFENSE. 



Mr. President, and Gentlemen of the Board of Trustees of Trinity 

College : 

Trinity College has had a very eventful history. Born, as it was, in a 
log school house, with a young country lad at the head of it, it has passed 
through all the stages of our educational system, has fought through all of 
the conflicts which belong to Southern colleges, has overcome in the great 
strife of a half century, and it stands to-day the best endowed college in 
the South Atlantic States, and in the Southern Methodist church. No 
man can review the history of Trinity without being thoroughly im- 
pressed with the great warfare which has been waged upon this institu- 
tion through all these years. The noble founder of the college was at- 
tacked in private and in public, was opposed at every point, and it is the 
verdict of his friends to-day that the heels of his enemies crushed his 
heart into the grave. Following in his footprints came the young, schol- 
arly, vigorous, noble and true John F. Crowell ; and whatever people 
may say about Dr. Crowell. so long as two bricks stand one on top of an- 
other in the Crowell Science Hall, there will be a monument at Trinity 
Park to the sincerity of that man's efforts and the purity of his love. 

And so. sir, the defendant, John C. Kilgo, entered upon your work at 
your solicitation ; he came to your State a stranger, and you and he be- 
gan together strangers. He does not think that there is one of you who 
questions the energy with which he has toiled, if you question even the 
policy which he has pursued. In a very short while this same attack, 
following the same line of historical succession, begins upon this new 
and strange president of Trinity College. In patience he bore it, and 
toiled on. He went into no newspaper squabbles, he had no controversy 
with men, till at last it was very evident to his mind that the patience of 
Trinity College through all these years had been misinterpreted, and men 
regarded it as cowardice and felt disposed to run over the college when- 
ever and wherever they chose. Then he determined that so long as he 
should stand at the head of this institution, holding high regard for her 
past history, and as guardian of the hundreds of its graduates and the 
undergraduates, and the sensitive nature of the young men gathered 
about him, he would defend her name against the onslaught of any man 
living. He invited no fight, but in his heart of hearts determined to be 
defamed no longer ; then, when, to his surprise, in your Board, a mem- 
ber appointed guardian, not only of the institution, but of the character 
of every employee in this institution, should so far forget his high and 
sacred responsibility in the matter, as not only to falsely interpret the 
motive which defendant had in his work, but also to regard this work so 
irreverently as to retail and slander the defendant's plans to his damage 
and to the damage of the institution, that came to the defendant as the 
most fearful shock that ever broke in his young life This is said by way 
of explaining to your Board why the defence determined to pursue this 
matter, and why he demanded of your Board that you should either free 
this college of a trickster, or else vindicate his character against these 
charges. 

Now, sirs, this case falls into three great divisions: The first refers to 
the charges, as to whether they have been supported by the testimony ; 
the next refers to the history of the case in order to show the animus of 



[ 142 ] 

the attack ; and the third refers to the ultimate purpose of the attack. It 
is under these three lines that the representative of the defence will dis- 
cuss the case and will leave the decision of it with you. The defendant 
wishes to say now that he is perfectly willing for you to sit on this case. 
We do not conceive that God could inflict a severer calamity and greater 
injustice upon the universe than to wind up its history without a universal 
judgment, at which every man shall stand and God shall testify as to 
him. And whatever shall be the verdicc of this hour, this much is true, 
the defendant will stand before God at last and the truth will be known. 

Now the first charge concerns the relation of the defendant to this 
Board Judge Clarke would have vou believe that he had in his posses- 
sion evidence to establish his original charges, and that the defendant 
intentionally evaded it. We read from Judge Clarke's letter to President 
Southgate ; "If your committee wanted information I could have given 
it to them." That is not a promise to find something, but it states clearly, 
that he had it then and could have given it to them ; but says that he. 
President Kilgo, did not intend that the}- should have it. In another 
paragraph of his letter he says, speaking of this evidence. "That was the 
last thing Dr. Kilgo intended I should have a chance to do." Now. gen- 
tlemen, the prosecution doesn't offer one word of testimony on this 
charge. Where is the evidence to prove it ? It must be proven or dis- 
proven by the facts in the history of the case, and so we ask you to re- 
view this charge. 

If you go back to the original correspondence between President Kilgo 
and Judge Clark you will find that he stated to Judge Clark in his last 
letter that he would place this correspondence before your Board. Judge 
Clark received, or was sent, the ordinary notice of the Board meeting, 
just as every other member of the Board. There is no evidence that 
Judge Clark was sick at the time of your Board meeting and could not 
attend; there is no evidence that his business duties prevented him from 
attending, but he was not here ; nor can he say, nor can the prosecution 
say, that finding he would not be here, President Kilgo took advantage 
of his absence and put this correspondence before you. A year before he 
had said plainly, "This matter will go before the Board at the first oppor- 
tunity," and that was the first. Where is there an element of evasion in 
that kind of procedure ? This Board knows whether in the presentation 
of that correspondence the defendant intended to evade any matter in 
connection with it, whether they had full information from him, whether 
they were forced to look after certain letters which he might have kept 
back. The Board remembers quite well how openly and frankly he rose 
to a question of personal privilege, and laid that correspondence in the 
hands of the Board and never had aught else to do with it. 

Besides that, gentlemen, this investigation was not forced on the de- 
fendant.. He is not in this court this afternoon by virtue of such power 
which you brought to bear upon him, but go to his published interview, 
as published in the Raleigh Post, and you will find that he says in it, 
"The Board will be unfair to me unless it investigates these reports and 
makes Judge Clark prove his charges." Is a statement like that the 
scheme of a man endeavoring to evade facts ? Isn't it a public challenge, 
issued to the Board of Trustees of Trinity College, to defend him, a mere 
employe —to bring him and the accuser face to face and let them settle 
the truth of the whole matter ? A man who wishes to evade truth, does 
he publicly challenge any man to an open investigation of a question ? 
Besides this, his honor knows quite well that, as the chief officer of this 
Board, the defendant went into his office and said, "Nothing will satisfy 
the conditions of justice and right in this matter except an investigation 
of it.'' Where is the effort at evasion in that conduct ? You might call 
it high handed impudence; you might call it defiance, for an employe to 



[ 143 ] 

issue such a demand to his superior and oflScial authority, but you are not 
asked to call it such, you are asked to call that kind of conduct evading 
facts. 

Now, the facts show that Judge Clark was the man who wished to evade 
the issues, and not the President of Trinity College. He was not present 
at the June meeting, mark you, though fully advised of what would occur. 
The defendant was at that meeting. In the meeting of July i8th Judge 
Clark emphasized the fact that he did not re-open this case Certainly 
he did not re-open it. He was quite willing for it to stop; he did not wish 
controveisy; he did not wish friction; he was anxious for peace in the 
church. Then who did re-open it ? The very man that's accused of 
evading the facts in his possession. Why did he not wish tore-open it, if 
loaded with so much evidence and so much truth as he claimed to be, 
knowing that this institution had at its head a man unfit for a janitor's 
position, or to shovel coal in its furnaces ? Yet he makes almost crime 
out of the fact that the defendant had it re-opened. Where is the evasion 
in the conduct of the defendant? Has the defendant yet left the front of 
the battle and skulked off into some hiding place like a Spanish soldier 
behind the shrubbery of some Cuban hill? He stands fully open and 
begs you to come here and re-open and investigate his record to the 
bottom. 

Not only this, but in the same meeting of July i8th Judge Clark failed 
to produce a single word of evidence he had in his possession. He said 
he could have done it at the June meeting There is no future tense 
about that declaration of his. The very charge that the defendant wished 
to evade shows that something first existed to be evaded, and then when 
he faces the issue, said, "I know nothing. Give me time and I will get 
it. I have no evidence to put before your board." What did the defend- 
ant say at that July meeting ? "Gentlemen, I am ready." By day and 
by night he had toiled from one end of the State to the other; had held 
close to the duties and responsibilities of his official relation to this insti- 
tution, but inside of nine or ten days given him he had brought his 
friends who could testify to these things and said, "Gentlemen, I am 
ready." You did not postpone that meeting on his account. Is that 
evasion ? If he had wanted to evade it he would have said, "Gentlemen, 
I am not ready; give me more time." But he said, "I am ready;" and, 
mark you, when more time was asked by Judge Clark and the limitations 
proposed which did not satisfy him, your defendant said, "Give Judge 
Clark till Christmas." Was that an effort to hinder Judge Clark from the 
production of testimony which he had had in his hands for weeks ? Is 
that the spirit of a man who wishes to get round what a man has and has 
not? 

Now, I ask you as honest men, in the sight of these facts, who evaded 
the issue ? What is the record of this employee's dealings with this 
Board? Has it been that of a skulking man. or of a man who always 
came to your Board, gave you the advantage of all the knowledge he had, 
and presented to you every suggestion possible to him for the good of 
this college ? No, sir, we say to your prosecutor that the crime of this 
charge rests, not at the feet of the defendant, but it does rest at the feet 
of the accusing witness. 

The next charge refers to the spirit which "animated the defendant in 
the serenade of Mr. Duke on the night of June yth. The words which 
Judge Clark used are "affluence of sycophancy. " This is a grave charge, 
and it means that the defendant is a base parasite. You can't find a word 
that sinks a man to a lower depth when you fasten it to him, than that 
word "sycophancy." And it was not ordinary sycophancy, but an 'af- 
fluence of sycophancy" which animated him on that occasion. Now 
where is the proof as to this charge ? What evidence do they produce to 



[ 144' ] 

prove it ? Not one word that's worth a notice. They bring in an honest, 
open-faced young reporter, Mr. Council, and put him on the stand to ask 
him about the speech, to prove the sycophancy of the defendant. He 
testified that the spirit of the defendant on that occasion was that of hu- 
mor and of mere outburst of impromptu exultation with a crowd of his 
college boys round about him Where is the sycophancy ? What does 
Mr. Willson say about the defendant toadying to men ? Says his knowl- 
edge of the man is that he is incapable of that kind of thing What does 
every witness for the defendant state ? That he is an open, a frank, in- 
dependent, self-assertive man who stands on his manhood. They are 
men who know the defendant; they are not men who dreamed one night 
they saw him, and woke up the next morning to retail yarns about his 
reputation. They are men who have stood by him in the pulpit all over 
his native State, who have gotten down with him in the straw at Metho- 
dist camp-meetings and talked with poor penitents, who have bowed 
with him at the bedside and offered their prayers unto their God, who 
have sat at tables and talked one with another, who unbosomed their in- 
nermost souls to each other — and these men come here and say, "This 
man is incapable of sycophancy; he toadies to nobody. " 

"What is the testimony of the defendant's colleagues? They are men 
who see him here under every trial incident to his official position, they 
see him in his home, they know him on the walks of the park, they 
know him in his associations with the students, they know him in con- 
nection with the financial problems of this institution, they have seen 
the laugh of joy on his face and the knit brow of distress he wore, these 
men come here and say that he is a frank, open, independent man who 
stands on his manhood. 

And yet, here is this man, Judge Clark, who mark you, was not pres- 
ent on the occasion of that speech, who never sat with the defendant, 
outside of this Benefactor's Parlor three hours together socially, a man 
upon whom is the ermine of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, 
sitting in judgment upon the innocent, frolicsome spirit of the defendant, 
when with his boys, they went to thank a good old gentleman for a rich 
benefaction which he had bestowed upon their institution. That was 
no mean hour to us ; other men may have cursed it as an hour of barter- 
ing away manhood; other men may have shed false tears and mourned 
hypocritically over what they thought was a degradation of this institu- 
tion; but in that crowd, assembled on the green of that old gentleman's 
yard sat that night men who knew Trinity when she was small and 
poor and who know her now, and are thankful to a Providence that led 
her amid her strifes and protects her in her wealth. They loved Trinity 
in the dark days and they did not that night go to barter their institu- 
tion to anybody. Because the defendant told historical truth, that he, 
Mr. W. Duke, is the greatest benefactor in the South, he is charged 
with sycophancy. Have you, gentlemen of the Board of Trustees, come 
here year by year, and seen the defendant barter this institution off for 
small gains, absolutely trading its character for a few sheckles and 
tethering it out in the pastures of political grazers, and have you 
kept your lips closed? That is a charge that doesn't simply strike the 
President, but it charges the last man, from Judge Clark down, with 
being a party to a fearful crime, and that crime in religious matters. 

Where is the sycophancy? That young man, Mr. Council, says the 
defendant made an impromptu speech, that he said nothing that Judge 
Clark published, that he made a humorous reference to Mr. Duke's 
home. Ah, let me say, after an association of fifteen long -and eventful 
years with men, measuring their characters by the standards of truth, by 
which we measure them under the ordinary conditions of life, that a 
man who leaps at such small, insignificant things as these to make of 



[ 145 ] 



them crime, is a man whose spirit would degrade praying into crime if 
his interests so indicated to him. 

We come to the speech as the third charge. The defendent is made 
to utter a speech, which, if true, is blasphemous. What are the facts in 
the case? The speech was made in the presence of several hundreds of 
people, and evidence is ample that no such speech was made. The wit- 
ness for the prosecution says it was not made. Mark you, this is no 
indirect discourse, attempted to be quoted, but it is a positive statement 
that in the spirit of sycophancy President Kilgo made this speech, and in 
it attempted to defame the courage of Mecklenburg, wipe out thie lustre 
of Bethel, stamp out the glory of Cardenas, and on this dust and wreck- 
age erect a god of gold. 

What does Mr. Bivins say, a student who has been in the class room 
with the defendant and heard. his private talks to his students, and when 
he spoke his thoughts out frankly, as Mr. Bivins says he always does? 
"He points us to high standards " Just contrary to Judge Clark's 
charge; he tries to lift the minds of his students to the heights of Shad- 
rach, Meshach and Abednego, where in defiance of the assembled hosts, 
they will not bow at the sound of music, but stand out and declare that 
manhood and truth are above dollars and pennies. A number of wit- 
nesses, gentlemen, went on the stand to testify as to this same fact, men 
who mark you, were standing close by the side of the defendant on that 
occasion. Every man of them says, "No such speech was uttered." 
They testify, on the contrary, that the spirit of the defendant is a rever- 
ent spirit, that he has at least some symptoms of respect for God and the 
truth, and that he never takes such high language as the coronation 
declaration of God when He shall crown His son, and drags it down to 
an hour like that, and gives it any such false application. He is a 
reverent man, they say. Do they know? They have seen him in the 
happy crowd full of laughter ; they have seen him in the sad hour of the 
heavy groans in the cemetery ; they have s«en him bowed down morn- 
ing after morning in prayer ; they have heard him talk to his students 
assembled from all parts of North Carolina ; they have seen him down 
by the side of the penitent soul trying to lead it into spiritual light and 
liberty, and these men say he is reverent. 

There are some things, gentlemen, that it takes a stronger nerve and 
spirit than the defendant has to bear without emotion. His mother 
taught him reverence before he can remember ; she taught him to honor 
God and his word ; and now, after the toil of these years, to have flung 
to the four winds of the earth that this man is a common blasphemer is 
beyond tolerance. You may substantiate the other charges if you can, 
but in the name of God and all truth, don't charge the defendant with 
trampling on the first lessons his mother taught him at her knees. 

Take in the surroundings of this charge, will you? Judge Clark was 
not present, and could have learned of it only by hearsay, and he 
would not intimate that he made this statement upon anything else than 
hearsay evidence. He is a member of the Supreme Court of this Com- 
monwealth and examines and passes upon the ability of the young men 
to practice law in its courts, and nobody should know better than he 
that hearsay testimony is never valid testimony. His experience at the 
bar, his dignity in the Great Court where he has a seat, should have lifted 
him high enough not to introduce mere newspaper reports, for the 
slander and damage of one over whom he had been set as guardian. 
But he does it on hearsay testimony. 

You recall that he accused the Board of Trustees of convicting him on 
ex parte testimony in the June meeting, yet he, a Supreme Court judge, 
on hearsay, ex parte testimony, renders this verdict of blasphemy against 
the defendant and announces it to all men. There is no way out of that. 



[ 146 J 

gentlemen ; no amount of squirming, no amount of logical trickery, and 
no amount of dickering with words will get around the fact that this 
verdict was rendered on hearsay, ex parte testimony, the very crime 
which he charges had been committed against him in its June meeting 
by this Board of Trustees. Where was that sincere conscience of his 
when in that court-room in which he was the self-appointed juror, wit- 
ness and judge, and to which the defendant was not admitted, bearing 
the seal of our highest court, comes this verdict of blasphemy against 
the defendant? I ask you, gentlemen, when you come to make up your 
verdict, to take in all these facts, to review them, and if you find a ver- 
dict of guilt in every other charge, if in the range of mercy, justice and 
truth you can lighten on this, let it be done 

In the fourth place, Judge Clark charges the defendant with venality, 
by asking the question, "I wonder how much personal gratuit}^ he 
received for this speech? It is hard for a man to be patient when he 
sees the low and false measures which certain men put to him. For 
fifteen years in a Southern Methodist Conference, at the call of the 
defendant's name, the answer has been, "Nothing against him." That 
is the measure of his church on him. But hear the measure of your 
highest judiciary upon a common citizen; it is that he is guilty of 
venality. It is true that the man who makes free to charge other men 
with venality should retire to his own closet and ask his own conscience 
as to whether he has not a price for himself. 

But where is the evidence by which he expects to sustain the accusa- 
tion? The prosecution dodges this charge No doubt he wishes that 
the defendant would dodge it. If the defendant is guilty of evasion, 
then what must you say about the prosecuting witness? Not a question 
did they ask bearing on it. The defendant did ask witnesses ; he asked 
Dr. Willson ; he asked a number of South Carolina gentlemen, whether 
they thought that was the character of the defendant, and every man of 
them said "No." Any man should be slow to charge another with a 
crime so low, and should pray a kind Providence to save him from 
measuring humanity by such low standards, and if men are guilty of 
these things, for the good of humanity keep it from the public's ears. 
But this Supreme Court judge, the conservator — one of the final conser- 
vators — of moral truth and civil rectitude, makes free to charge that 
crime against the President of Trinity College, and hadn't a word of 
testimony to prove it, but says, "Give me thirty days' time and I will 
get it '' He got forty-three days and never secured a word of this 
promised testimony, but comes into this court and goes around the 
charge with a display of high handed innocence. 

Now, whatever else you may find, gentlemen, in your review of this 
matter, I do not hesitate to say, you cannot find one word that ought to 
made you stop a moment at this charge. 

In the fifth place, he charges the defendant with having the reputation 
of a wire-pulling politician of the ward type in South Carolina. Mark 
the words, gentlemen ; not simply a politician, not simply a wire-puller, 
but a wire-pulling politician of the ward type. Who can define the 
meaning of that? I stand here to say that the defendant doesn't know 
what he means by ward politics. Providence has sent his life from the 
cradle to this hour along a different plane and along a different pathwaj'' 
from the dirt of what he means by "ward politics," "wire-pulling ward 
politics." If a ward politician is a mean man, then how much meaner 
is a wire-pulling one ? That man would out-Beelzebub Beelzebub. 
This, gentlemen, is not the language of a calm man, it is the language 
of an enraged man ; it is not the deliberate utterance of a man sure of 
the foundation of his statements Poor human nature, when once 
turned loose under passion, drags its anchor and too frequently drives 



[ 147 ] 

its bow into the rocks and wrecks itself. And when men become 
enraged, adjectives become cheap, and the charging of crimes becomes 
pastime. 

This charge, gentlemen, refers to the defendant's South Carolina 
record, and South Carolina testimony is necessary for its establishment. 
Because you as his brethren, and the church which you represent, could 
not know all the facts in the case, the defendant w^as willing to undergo 
the humiliation of walking in the streets of the towns of his native State 
and telling his friends he had come back to ask for a vindication before 
a North Carolina body of Methodists. You may think that a small 
thing, but a sensitive nature, having to harden its face in its young 
years to a task like that, is no small undertaking — to tell the men who 
very nearly nursed him that he was in search of evidence to prove to his 
church in another State that he is not a scoundrel, i say that he was 
willing to undergo that humiliation for your sake, not because he felt 
that before God he needed it, but as unholy hands had been laid on holy 
interests, he was determined that the spots left by those finger touches 
should be washed off and he should be bleached. 

The supreme question concerning the charge is, "Where did Judge 
Clark get his original information?" He did not know it personally, for 
he so stated in your meeting of July 18th. Mark that, gentlemen ; he 
was not writing what he personally knew, for after having time to con- 
sider it. having been summoned before this court to prove it, he was 
forced to say that he had no personal knowledge of any facts to sustain 
a charge he made. Then w^here did he get it? He said that his charges 
were based upon hearsay evidence which came to him in private conver- 
sation and private correspondence. The defendant wishes for the high 
esteem he once had for the highest judiciary, feeling that over and 
above him were men, each of them so full of justice and fairness. that 
whatever injustice might be perpetrated in the low^er courts, it wo aid 
be more than adjudicated and justly settled in this higher court. But 
here a Supreme Court judge comes to say to you frankly that he pub- 
lished grave charges on hearsay testimony. 

So, then, Judge Clark is not the original accuser, and, I have it in my 
mind to say, I believe it is the honest truth, that Judge Clark has been 
most falsely dealt with by some common gossip in whom he thought he 
had a right to have confidence. You can't make the defendant believe, 
you never will do it, though Judge Clark himself testify to it, he will 
never believe that Judge Clark, born and raised in the home from which 
he comes, cultured as he is, with the high social environments of his 
life, would have made a charge like that without believing that he had 
just grounds upon which to make it. He would have violated the laws 
of common testimony which would not be violated to-day in a negro 
magistrate's court, though an opossum dog be the only property at issue. 

No\v the question stands, and it is still an unanswered question, Who 
is the original malign er? We regret very much that Judge Clark did 
not go on the stand and tell you who he is. Judge Clark's duties to 
himself demanded that he should do it. Fairness to you demanded that 
the prosecution should have brought out that man ; for to hide a crime 
is to become particeps criminis, and there is to-day somewhere in this 
land a maligner turned loose with a dagger in his hand to stab the 
defendant in the dark, and from all sid^s, and yet the defendant not 
even given a warning by which he may watch for this dastardly work. 
Where is he, gentlemen? Hear me, and if you forget everything else, 
remember this, "Character and a good name are too cheap in the South 
to-day." What encouragement has a man to toil and suffer and deny 
himself, if all his self-denial and his struggle against temptation, his 
character is to be traduced by a hidden maligner? 



[ 148 J 

Two men were examined in South Carolina by the deputy of the 
prosecution, and they did not know how they came to be witnesses in 
this case. They had not spoken with Judge Clark ; they had no cor- 
respondence with Judge Clark, and they were surprised that they were 
in any manner involved in this matter. So those two men were not the 
original informants. It took Judge Clark till August 11 or 12 to furnish 
even the names of these witnesses. Mark that, gentlemen. Here is the 
defendant's summons before me, dated August 11, that is, just twenty- 
four days from the time you had your July meeting in which, according; 
to your minutes, Judge Clark was ordered by this court to give the 
defendant at once the names of his witnesses and twenty-four days 
following, he got the names of these South Carolina witnesses; and 
those who went on the stand say, "We know nothing about Judge Clark 
nor how we came to be witnesses." Then, gentlemen, I say none of 
these men is the original maligner. 

Then where did Judge Clark get this information concerning J. C. Kil- 
go's South Carolina reputation ? Why did he not tell you ? Certainly 
you cannot think he was afraid to tell you ? Is he ashamed of his man ? 
Is he a man of such a low tvpe of character that Judge Clark is afraid to 
let you know who he is ? Would there be more disgrace in publishing 
his companion in these charges than there would be in suffering what 
may come from them ? 

You recall, gentlemen, that in the defendant's first correspondence 
with Judge Clark, the Judge demanded that President Kilgo give him 
the informant. The defendant did so at once. But gentlemen, if you 
will take in the whole situation and connect it with the testimony of 
Mr. Gattis you will likely find the original slanderer. Here are the facts: 
Mr. Gattis said that he was put on the stand against his will, that he did 
not wish to come here ; that he was pressed to come ; that he had rather 
give one hundred dollars and be out of it. That is a high price for him. 
That means that an ordinary man would have given a very large amount 
for a like commodity. Behind a pious smile, a religious walk, and a sol- 
emn twitch of the coat tail, many men carry a spirit unworthy of them. 
He has been occasionally to South Carolina and evidently gossiped too 
much for a preacher about the defendant. You remember quite well 
how he in his testimony dodged the issues, and would look so solemn 
and say. "I can't answer ;" you remember how witty he tried to be at 
one time. Poor wit over the suffering heart and the torn bosom of one 
of his brethren whom he had lascerated in the dark by stabbing him in 
the back ! 

Had the defendant done anything to warrant this meanness ? Didn't 
Mr. Gattis sa}' himself that the defendant befriended him in South Car- 
olina and used his influence to get him employed by that Conference ? 
Didn't he say himself that the defendant had recommended books for 
him ; that the defendant had tried to sell books for him and help his busi- 
ness ; that President Kilgo was his friend? What, then, had President 
Kilgo done to him to warrant any such vicious conduct ? Between the 
man hiding himself by the highway and making a victim of an innocent 
traveler and the man who in the dark assassinates the character which a 
man has tried to build for himself, send me to the woods with a revolver 
and let me murder every passer-by rather than malign my fellow man. 

He was asked if President Kilgo had not ceased to visit his stoie, and 
he said "Yes." President Kilgo had been there and heard gossip till de- 
cency demanded that he keep out of such a crowd. President Kilgo has 
heard very unchristian gossip over the counters where Christian litera- 
ture was retailed. 

But you say it might have been Mr. Beckwith and Mr. Boone, because 
they are two other witnesses for Judge Clark. It could not have been, 
for this reason ; They gave testimony which they got since the July meet- 



[ 149 ] 

ing ; they did not kno^y anything about the defendant's reputation in 
South Carolina at that time. Mr. Beckwith did not know anything about 
it till recently, and he testified to what he learned this month. This is 
true of Mr. Boone. Judge Clark acted on what he knew in June, to say 
the least. So his original informant dates back of June. 

The two South Carolina witnesses sav, "We don't know how we got to 
be witnesses ; don't know Judge Clark, and never corresponded with 
him." Mr. Gattis is the only other witness for the prosecution on this 
charge, and his knowledge antedates the Judge's charges, and hence Mr. 
Gattis is the original gossip. And it is evident that this whole affair comes 
out of the fact that a Methodist preacher, licensed by the same law, wor- 
shipping in the same pulpit, has foully dealt with the defendant. Again, 
Dr. Peacock testified that Mr. Gattis has slandered President Kilgo to 
him. More than once those slanders reached the defendant's ears. 

Never did the defendant suppose till just a few days since that Mr. 
Gattis had anything to do with this matter He saj^s that two others told 
him that he must come here and give his testimony or else his name 
would be used in this court. You recall that Judge Clark said in the July 
meeting, "If these men," meaning his informants, "do not testif}^ I will 
come here and say they lied to me.'' Judge Clark would have kept his 
word, if he had not produced here the witness upon whom he relied to 
come here and relieve him, and if that witness was not in this court we 
would not have been here thirty minutes. Judge Clark would have 
relieved the whole situation. Mr. Gattis said two others pressed him to 
come here. Who are they that forced him to testify ? We urged him to 
tell this court, but he declined The man who wishes to tell the truth, 
the whole truth and nothing but the truth, dodges nothing. Under all 
these conditions do you gentlemen propose to say that you believe Mr. 
T. J. Gattis told and intended to tell you the truth ? He says that what 
he told was forced out of him. The lover of truth never speaks under 
such compulsion, but Judge Clark seemed to have him in close quarters. 

Who were those other two men ? Thev are a law firm, gentlemen, in 
the city of Durham. They were men representing Judge Clark and help- 
ing him out of his trouble, into which he was dragged by this traducer of 
the defendant's character. Mr. Gattis said they lived in Durham and are 
not members of this Board, and when urged if they had any connection 
with this court he said, "I will not say.'' Why.? Because Mr. Boone 
happened to be a witness in this court. There is where the connection 
came. Judge Clark would have kept his word, but his friends got behind 
a man who was not willing to stand by what he said to Judge Clark, and 
they forced him to open his lips here. They no doubt told him you can- 
not play the coward this way, since Judge Clark had made statements on 
your authority. That is the situation of the case as it appears to us, and 
if it is not true when we find it out, we will retract it before you, but we 
cannot now with the present light before us. We cannot reach any other 
conclusion than this which we bring before you now. 

You recollect that we set out to find the original informant, and satis- 
factorily to our minds we have found him. We ask you, gentlemen, 
before you fling away the arguments that we have made and the conclu- 
sion that we have drawn, to weigh every inch of that testimony well. 

President Kilgo was summoned to South Carolina by the prosecution 
to take depositions on the charges against his South Carolina reputation. 
The prosecution secured only two witnesses, Messrs. Ligon and Jennings. 
Out of all the thousands in South Carolina, only two men could be se- 
cured as witnesses by the prosecution. Think about that. Only two 
men out of more than a million people in South Carolina. The defendant 
puts on the stand thirteen witnesses, and could have put on the stand 
thousands had he been so disposed and time would have allowed. 



[ 150 ] 

We call your attention to the class of these witnesses. Mr. Ivigon is a 
preacher and president of the Holiness Association, and that means very 
much in South Carolina. It may not mean much to the North Carolina 
mind, but it means very much more to a man who has wrought earnestly 
in South Carolina. According to Mr. Ligon's own testimony, he knows 
very little about President Kilgo. He said, "We were never closely asso- 
ciated." He was asked if he was an intimate friend of Dr. Kilgo 's. They 
only had a Conterehce association Now there is this statement to start 
out with. He also admits that President Kilgo was opposed to his pecu- 
liar notions of sanctification, and that there had been friction between 
members of this association and those who did not belong to it. The de- 
fendant has had those men to come to him in the congregation and try 
to lead him to the altar. He has sat in the congregation and been abused 
along with the other men who did not agree with them; has been stopped 
in the midst of his sermons by men who attacked him because he said 
something that did not exactly agree with them. They intrude them- 
selves into other pastorates; they encourage each other in it. One of the 
witnesses says that Mr. Ligon's mind is biased and that he is thought by 
some of his brethren to be fanatical; that the worst thing in this whole 
thing is that these brethren are unteachable, and some of us know some- 
thing about that 

Mr. Jennings, a witness for the prosecution, says that Dr. Kilgo was 
not liked by these men because he was not one of them, and even names 
Mr. Ligon. Mr. Jennings is a witness for the prosecution, and he says 
that President Kilgo was not liked by those Holiness brethren, and doesn't 
stop at that, but says that Mr. Ligon is the president of the Holiness As- 
sociation, specifying him. Mr. Brown says that there has been friction 
between these two classes in South Carolina. 

Mr J W Kilgo testified that Mr. Ligon was complained against atone 
of his conferences for encouraging some of these men to go in the bounds 
of another man's pastorate. 

The spirit of Mr. Ligon is shown in his efforts at testimony. I say 
"efforts," gentlemen, because he gives no clear-cut testimony from .^^tart 
to finish. We looked Mr. Ligon straight in the eyes when he was on the 
stand and saw his dodging. Some of the word quibbling that Mr. Ligon 
deals in is unworthy of him He said the character of Mr. Kilgo was 
good. When asked how about President Kilgo's reputation, he said: 
"His official reputation is bad, but his moral character is good.'' The 
defendant now wonders in what sort of a fix he will be when his moral 
character gets to Heaven and his official character goes to hell. There is 
but one way out of this dilemma — that is to get the Second Blessing and 
save the official character. 

In his effijrts at testimony Mr. Ligon fails to tell anything he knew; 
attempts to report rumors. Go through his testimony, and every word 
of it is rumor, but these rumors he seems to retail with a special decree 
of pleasure. All this shows that in spite of his high professions of holi- 
ness, he has gathered an amount of gossip against three men in his Con- 
ference, one now dead, and retails it. Dr. Davis Kirkland, who, if he 
were living to day, sirs, would be here to answer for himself, must be 
dragged out of the quiet sepulchre where his friends put him just the 
other day, it seems, and by men who profess en lire sanctification, 
brought into this court. Will a man so far lose his sense of duty 
as to retail rumors on the dead ? Will men not quit lying on a man when 
he is dead? Will gossip follow him to the gates of the eternal world and 
bombard them with their falsehoods till they shake the confidence of an- 
gels in the newborn saint? Mr. Beckwith and Mr. Ligon could have 
allowed Davis Kirkland to rest in his grave. The defendant knew the 
poor fellow, and he stands to-day to defend his dead brother and friend 



[ 151 ] 

against any such gossip. He had enough. God knows ne had enough 
to bear, and yet he must be dragged out of his grave and dragged into 
this court to be a party to false rumors against a friend, on whose bosom 
he leaned till his dying day. We wish you to charge this to the spirit of 
this witness. 

The defendant protested against this as hearsay testimony. Yet the 
deputy, Mr. Beckwith, seems to have drawn the conclusion that the de- 
fendant was utterly helpless and totally ignorant of the laws of evidence. 
This deputy did not ask about the general character and reputation of the 
defendant, but sought for special rumors. Such methods are against the 
ethics of the legal profession and beneath the dignity of a high-toned 
lawyer. 

Mr. Ligon said that he saw President Kilgo at the Laurens Conference 
button-holing men, and when asked if he knew what President Kilgo 
said to them he said, "No, sir, I only supposed he was drumming them." 
Mark you, he said on the staad, this professor of entire sanctification, at 
the head of the Holiness movement in his State, that because he saw two 
gentlemen walk together to or from the conference room or walk aside 
in the conference room, he sat there and suspected them of unworthy 
manipulations. It takes no religion to save a man from that kind of sus- 
picion. Mr. IngersoU is pious enough not to suspect two gentlemen 
talking with each other. That kind of spirit in the ministry would do 
the Church of God more harm than all of the infidels from the day, sirs, 
of creation down to the time of Herbert Spencer, Tyndall and the whole 
lot. of infidel giants. All these facts, gentlemen, go to show the suspect- 
ing spirit of this President of the Holiness Association and his unfair 
spirit in thinking of men who do not agree with him. 

The other witness is Mr. Jennings, a lawyer of Spartanburg, a man of 
a high order of intellect and the truest character. He is incapable of 
anything dishonest. The day he was examined he was sick and this ac- 
counts for the incoherences in his testimony. Honesty requires this ex- 
planation. 

Now, gentlemen, let us see what these two witnesses testify. They are 
the men by whom Judge Clark expects to prove that the President of 
Trinity College had the reputation in South Carolina of being a wire- 
puller and ward politician. Look at this testimon}'. 

Mr. Ligon says that President Kilgo's character is good, was never 
complained against. He was asked the question if there had ever been 
any complaint in the Conference against President Kilgo, and he said, 
"No, sir," Here are his words: "His moral character was good but some 
of his brethren did believe that he was somewhat of a manipulator, that 
is, that he was not mean nor low." Now mark you, your charge is a 
mean or low manipulator— manipulator of the ward politician type. 
Your own witness says that even the rumor, is not that he is a low and 
mean manipulator, that his character is good and his manipulation is 
good. It is not mean it is not low. Whatever is not mean or low is good 
and high and, there is nothing grander than a manipulator on a high 
scale. God, himself, from his eternal throne manipulates every star 
that sweeps in the sky above you, and every breeze of the air that fans 
the cheek of your babes, and everj^ drop o water that leaps down the 
mountain side and dashes in torrents beneath. There is no objection to 
a manipulator if he manipulates for the right purpose and on a high 
scale. Judge Clark says that the defendant is a manipulator on a low" 
scale, of a ward politician type. Brother Ligon says he is not. Then he 
goes on and says: 'T don't say it is the opinion of a majority, but it is 
the opinion of some." Mark you; this is rumor he is trying to tell 
you. He says, "I don't say that a majority of the brethren believe it 
but some do." Gentlemen, the charge against the defendant is on his 



[ 152 J 

general reputation or general character and you do not determine that 
by the opinion of one, two or three witnesses ; it must be what the com- 
munity thinks of a man— as the general opinion of the man in the 
community. The old English law put the question, "WiU you believe 
the man on his oath?" Your deputy dodged all this and asked, ' 'Haven't 
you heard so and so?'' Gentlemen, he went on a very unworthy hunt. 
He went even to the grave and dug up men, to the Advocate office of the 
South Carolina Conference and dragged out men who have nothing to do 
with this case and brought them here and charged them as manipulators. 
If Dr. John O. Willson, were here he would answer for himself, and had 
you put the testimony of Mr. Beckwith before the court twenty-four 
hours ago he should have been here to answer for himself. Mr. Beck- 
with says that he knows of a great manj^ in the Conference, Mr. Ligon 
says "I can't say. " Mr. Ligon was asked positively, "How many did 
you talk with, two dozen, three dozen?" ''Yes, possibly more." "Four 
dozen?" Well, now," he said, "I can't say about that, may be I did, but 
if so they were not all preachers." Out of seventy-three thousand 
Methodists in South Carolina this man talked with possibly four dozen 
and says that they are men who have hard feelings against the defend- 
ant because of the defeat of their little plans at the Laurens Conference. 
That Mr. Dargsan and President Kilgo had had a falling out and that it 
would be unpleasant for them to stay together is utterly untrue. Mr. 
Dargan and President Kilgo rode from that District Conference on the 
same seat and talked together till they separated in Columbia, S. C. 

When President Kilgo asked Mr. Ligon. "Is that my reputation in 
South Carolina?" and urged it, he said. "No, sir." And when asked, 
"Are these things mere suspicious?" Mr. Ligon answered "Yes, sir." 

This, gentlemen, is the substance of Mr. Ligon's testimony. The 
defendant could risk his life on such evidence before a just jury. 

We come to the testimony of Mr. Jennings, "President Kilgo is not a 
manipulator. He is a hustler, and the Board of Trustees of Wofford 
College passed resolutions concerning his successful work for the college. 
His alma mater honored him with the degree of D. D. and did it enthu- 
siastically." The prosecution did not wish to present this evidence, and 
you remember the defense had to say ' 'Well, if he will not stand by his 
witness put him down to our account, we will take him." After going 
nearly 250 miles for him the prosecution did not want him. Yet your 
deputy said he was seeking for the truth and was as cold-blooded as a 
frog, and when he ^ot the facts the prosecutor said, "We don't want to 
publish them. " Mr. Beckwith is a frog without blood. Mr. Jennings 
also said, "President Kilgo doubled the students at Wofford." This, of 
course, does not suit the prosecution. These are your two South Caro- 
lina witnesses and Mr. Beckwith could not get any others. 

At last North Carolina witnesses are called to testify about a man's 
character that began the day after the battle of Manassas. The report 
from the defendant's native Sta.te does not suit the prosecution, so North 
Carolina witnesses are called on. The first of these is Mr. Beckwith, 
of Raleigh, and he says HE DID NOT KNOW A MAN IN SOUTH 
CAROLINA WHEN HE STARTED DOWN THERE AUGUST 16th. 
Now, think about that. He says furthermore that he was in South 
Carolina ONLY EIGHT DAYS. He touched SEVEN TOWNS. He 
did not KNOW A MAN IN ONE OF THOSE TOWNS; had to hunt 
them all and introduce himself and had no one to assist him That was 
lightning work. Yet he is a witness for Judge Clark. On what did he 
base his conclusion? On. hearsay evidence. Was President Kilgo pres- 
ent with those witnesses whom he carried behind the door? He was 
not. Mr. Beckwith heard eleven witnesses examined for the defense 
who said under oath that was not the defendant's reputation. He heard 



[ lf>8 J 

his two witnesses say that it was not. He dodged Governor Ellerbe 
and Senator McLanrin. He did not make up his opinion from what he 
had heard from those sworn witnesses, but comes here and states, "I 
made up my opinion from what I heard folks say." Who were these 
folks? THEY WERE MEN WHO DID NOT GO ON THE STAND and 
who, according to his testimany. HE COULD NOT GET ON THE 
STAND. Will you make up your verdict from that sort of testimony? 
That's searching for truth as cold as a frog, but, sir, it's jumping oflf of 
the tussock too soon, and is jumping into a very muddy pond. Hearsay 
evidence from men who will hot go on the stand ! You cannot be- 
lieve any man who will not back his words. You cannot believe any 
man Tvho will talk in the dark and not in the light. If that is the class 
of men the prosecution has been dealing with, then I say that they have 
communed with a base set of cowards. Mr. Beckwith is a lawj-er, or 
sort of one, and knows that hearsay evidence will not do, and if he had a 
case in court to-day, with a poor fellow's life involved, he would fight 
against such low methods ; but the defendant has no life, but a character, 
and then he as a lawyer comes here and saj^s, "In eight days I made up 
my mind on testimony that is hearsay, which I got behind the back of 
the defendant. I did not make up mind on what was said under oath 
in open court." Why did he not form his opinion from what Maj. 
Duncan said. Bishop Duncan, Governor Ellerbe, Senator McLaurin and 
others said? When the defendant was about to tell Mr. Beckwith good- 
bye in Columbia and said to him, "I will not go to Sumter, but I shall 
go home." Mr. Beckwith said, "I have got nothing. " The defendant 
said to him, "You have as much as I expected you would get " But 
now Mr. Beckwith says: "I've got the fact that his reputatian is bad'" 
and is much more positive about it than Mr. Ligon is. Mr. Ligon said, 
"His character is good. Mr. Beckwith AFTER EIGHT DAYS, and 
talking with with a few men behind Prof. Kilgo's back, comes here and 
says, "I KNOW IT." Gentlemen, if that will hang the defendant let 
him die. I would not to-day, after traveling with Mr Beckwith, go on 
the stand and say what his character is, and I live here in the State with 
him. His testimony will be beautiful reading for the public. In seven 
days Mr. Beckwith found out more about the character of Prof. Kilgo 
than Bishop Duncan, the Presiding Elders, the preachers. Governor 
Ellerbe (w^ho went to college with him and was his class-mate) and all 
South Carolina knows. Let the public have it. Let them understand 
what the defendant is contending against. 

But there is another side to this matter Why did he examine those 
backbiting cowards at all? He had no authority to do it. The court 
gave him authority to examine only those witnesses whose names you 
sent to the defendant. After President Kilgo left him in Columbia, he 
went on and examined men Vv^hom the defendant never heard of and was 
never advised of. Justice may be very scarce in the world, but lying is 
voluminous. Do you believe him? 

Mr. Boone did not know anything about this matter till he went to 
South Carolina. He went to South Carolina since the first of August. 
He went to Spartanburg, and in a few days conies back and states that 
the defendant's reputation is that of a wire-puller, "provided," as he 
says, "if what I heard some men say is true." He would not give any 
assertive testimony. Bishop Duncan, Major Duncan, Prof. Rembert, 
Mr. Brown, Mr. Meadows, Governor Ellerbe, Senator McLaurin, Dr. 
Willson, Dr. Creitzberg and others say his character is good, his reputa- 
tion first class. Let the public judge between these men 

The last witness for the prosecution is one Rev. T. J. Gattis, who 
preaches sometimes and sells books in South Carolina and in a part of 
North Carolina. He has been attending District Conferences in South 



[ 154 ] 



Carolina for the past three years, and knows more about the defendant's 
reputation than the leading men of the church and State who have 
known the defendant throughout his whole life. Mr. Gattis is very 
wise, it is a pity that he was not less of a talker. 

It has been shown that this witness is the original maligner in this case 
and most likely he furnished Judge Clark with the names of those from 
whom testimony was taken in South Carolina. The testimony of Dr. 
Peacock shows that four years ago this Mr. Gattis was telling that the 
South Carolina Conference nearly worshipped the defendant, and that 
he was the pet of South Carolina, yet he goes to Judge Clark and tells 
just the contrary. Mr. Gattis talks so much that truth seems to have 
small opportunity in his hands. Which one of this man's tales will you 
believe? Which one does he believe? Is he worthy of your credence? 
Read his testimony, and mark his dodgings. 

The prosecution then presents the deposition of Dr. Kingsbury, who 
iries to repeat a message which he says Mr. Crews said the defendant 
sent to him. There is more hearsay stuff gathered into this court by 
the prosecution than was ever attempted in any other court. But false- 
hood is hard run in this case 

The defendant sent no message to Dr. Kingsbury. What was said has 
been published in the papers of the State, and by it the defendant stands 
to day. Every charge he ever made against Dr. Kingsburj^ he proved 
beyond the shadow of a doubt. 

Mr. Crews, who made this report to Dr. Kingsbury, was proven by 
Rev. Mr. Hurley and Dr. Ivy to have severed his marriage vows. Yet 
you are asked to believe him. 

But what has all this Kingsbury matter to do with this case? Not one 
thing. It touches not a single one of the charges, but only shows the 
desperation of a bad cause in the hands of a malicious prosecuting wit- 
ness. Dr. Kingsbury undertook to damage this College and the 
defendant told him to keep his hands off. The Doctor has had an 
ecclesiastical historj^ which should humiliate him enough to keep quiet 
in church matters. 

These are the North Carolina witnesses. Look at them — Mr. Beck- 
with, Mr. Gattis, Dr. Kingsburj^ and an effort at the unmentionable man. 

Your deputy did not get Rev. J. A. Clifton's testimon}' in right form, 
l3ut brought here a certificate which he knew was worth nothing. You 
sent him to South Carolina to examine this witness, but he found that 
Mr. Clifton would say that the defendent's character and reputation 
were of the highest, and he got him to say it in worthless form That 
is not a cold-blooded search after truth, but the plunge of a frog into a 
sea of meanness. Here is another evidence of this collusion between 
your prosecuting witness^ and this deputy you .sent to South Carolina. 

Examine the testimony for the defendant, Mr. L M. Davis, Mr M. 
Johnson, Mr. J. G. Anderson and Presiding Elder Campbell, who all 
know him, and have known him intimately; those who know South 
Carolina say that the reputation of the defendant is of the best and that 
they never heard otherwise. Can you believe them against Mr. Gattis 
and Mr. Beck with? 

At Spartanburg Major Duncan, a prominent lawyer, Prof. Rembert, 
an educator who travels over all South Carolina and knows the defend- 
ant and the church. Presiding Elder Meadows, Rev. H. B. Brown, and 
Bishop W. W. Duncan were examined for the defence. These are not 
of the class toward which Mr. Beck with gravitated; they are the best 
of South Carolina. Note what they all say. They declared that the 
defendant's reputation is of the best. Read their tevstimony; read 
Bishop Duncan's, and hear him say that the defendant should thank 
God for his South Carolina record. Will you believe these or will you 
believe Lawyer Beck with and Rev. Thomas Jefferson Gattis? 



[ 155 ] 

In Columbia the defendant took the depositions of Senator McLaurin 
and Governor Ellerbe. These men represent the political world and 
tell you that in that world no man in South Carolina has a better repu- 
tation than the defendant Governor Ellerbe says that he is incapable 
of a mean act for his own interest. 

You recall what Dr. Willson and Dr. Creitzberg said. They have 
known the defendant through his entire ministry, and declare that his 
reputation has always been high. Dr. Willson gives instances to dis- 
prove anj^ ecclesiastical ambitions. 

Rev. Mr. Turrentine and Mr. Bass tell you what Dr. Carlisle said to 
them, and Mr. Newsome tells that Dr. Carlisle said that he would not 
change a word he said to these gentlemen. 

You have heard Professors Meritt, Flowers, Pegram, Bivins, Cran- 
ford and Bassett say that the defendant is an open, frank and independent 
man These are not the qualities of a wire-puller of ward politician 
type. All of these are honorable gentlemen. 

On the charge of his performances in North Carolina warranting his 
South Carolina record there is not a word of evidence. 

On the Tennessee record there is not a word. The prominent preach- 
er's name is not given, though defendant challenged Judge Clark in the 
public prints to name the man. He did not name him ; he does not now 
name him. There are, therefore, the best reasons to believe that no 
such statement was ever made to Judge Clark. No man would hazard 
his veracity to cover a traducer of character. 

Gentlemen, I now come to the history of this case in order to show 
you the malice of Judge Clark 

He is a member of this Board, and the defendant is an employee. He 
sat here a year ago and expressed one opinion while he covered up an- 
another. Why did he not have the manhood to say here what he after- 
wards said to Mr, Brown behind the back of the defendant? 

Look at the correspondence between Judge Clark and the defendant. 
I challenge you to find one word from the pen of the defendant that was 
unkind or even harsh. In his letters Judge Clark tried to dodge every 
issue, and gave as his reason that he did not wish a controversy. Is 
that the truth? 

I remind you of his vote commending President Kilgo and ask you to 
reconcile it with his later talk to Mr. Brown. He cannot say that his 
mind had changed, for at that meeting, before he A'-oted on the resolu- 
tions, he had placed his resignation in the hands of Colonel Alspaugh. 

The spirit in which he published letters to Mr. Southgate and the en- 
raged spirit that he put into them indicate a spirit of venom. 

When called to face the charges at your July meetins:, he knew noth- 
ing to support them. He asked for thirtj' days and you gave him forty- 
three days Mark you, he only wanted thirty days. You ordered him 
to furnish the names of witnesses to your prosecutor at once. He did 
not obey the order. Your prosecutor went to see him and was put off 
till August 10th. He consumed twenty-three days of the forty-three in 
giving the names of men that had been in his hands for months. Who 
believes it? 

August the 1 2th fie gave the names to Mr. Beckwith, whom he selected 
to act for the Board. The defendant was notified to meet the following 
engagements to take depositions: Roxboro, N. C, Monday. August 15th; 
Rock Hill, S. C, August i6th; Spartanburg, S. C. August 17th and i8th; 
Abbeville, S. C , August 19th; Columbia, S. C , August 22d; Sumter, S C, 
August 23d; Wilmington, N. C, August 25th; Kelford, N. C.. August 27th. 
The 28th of August was Sunday, and the trial began August 30. Your 
Board ordered him to furnish his depositions by August 20th, so the de- 
fendant could have ten days to prepare a reply. You see how he and Mr. 



[ 156 ] 

Beckwith arranged the programme. Mr. Oglesby was out of the way, 
and the defendant was at the Winston District Conference, and with un- 
scrupulous design Judge Clark sought to defeat the possibility of the de- 
fendant's securing a single witness. That, sirs, is a meaner scheme than 
a ward politician could have perpetrated, but it is the scheme of Judge 
Clark of the Supreme Court of North Carolina. Certainly he "intended 
the consequences of his acts," as he so emphatically urged on another 
occasion. 

I ask that you note the conduct of Mr. Beckwith in South Carolina. If 
the defendant has the reputation of a ward politician in that State he 
would not swap it for the one your Mr. Beckwith left behind him with 
the decent people of old South Carolina. 

I refer you to the document read by Judge Clark on yesterday in which 
he tries to show that this Board is incompetent to try this case. The de- 
fendant is ready to leave the matter of his character in your hands, and 
Judge Clark, who is a mere witness, should raise no complaint. It was 
only one of his dodges to evade any investigation. But such accusations 
come with poor grace from him. If you are incompetent in this case, 
what must be said of a Judge on the Supreme Court bench who has de- 
nounced corporations, financial problems, business enterprises and issued 
without cause his verdict before the trial ? I say he is the last man who 
should complain against you. 

He never did furnish to any one the names of his Caswell county wit- 
nesses, but attempted to run them in here on mere certificates without 
the defendant having a ghost of an opportunity of knowing them, much 
less a chance to examine them. What will lawyers think of this conduct 
on the part of a Supreme Court Judge ? 

All of this history proves the deepest malice on the part of Judge Clark, 
and the verdict should say as much. His conduct is unworthy of the 
lowest order of politics. But we leave you to settle all of this. 

Gentlemen, there is a principle involved in this case that is far-reaching 
and threatens the foundations of our educational liberty. From the be- 
ginning Trinity College has stood for freedom. Through all of her 
struggles the one impulse of her life has been liberty. No men ever 
nursed the principles of freedom in this commonwealth with more jeal- 
ousy than her sons; no boys went more readily to Virginia's fields of 
slaughter than hers. Here we reserve the right of holding to political 
freedom and will not bow to any political ring nor recognize any political 
master Boys shall come here Democrats, Republicans, Populists, and 
hold their views without shame or fear. Truth is what this college wants, 
and God alone shall rule its destiny. 

In these last days there is a political crowd that has sprung up who are 
determined to enslave every college for their purposes, or kill every one 
that will not bow to their god. Already t'hey have laid foul hands on 
State education, as is seen in the Kansas University and in the case of 
Dr. Houston in the Texas University. Dependent upon the ruling polit- 
ical party for appropriations, these institutions are forced to nurse or not 
oppose the wildest political doctrines. Such bondage is degradation to 
all thought. But now they come to the doors of the church colleges, 
whose freedom they dread, and lay their clutches upon their throats and 
strive to choke them into base servitude or an infamous death. Trinity 
will suffer neither. By the eternals, she shall be free. No political power, 
nor any other, shall ever chain her, but over and above everything else 
she shall answer to God and obey the truth,- and that is what they do not 
wish. For this the defendant is assailed by political tricksters, but into 
their faces he flings defiance, while his old Scotch Irish blood runs hot 
and the impulse of freedom beats heavy in his bosom. Defame and ma- 
lign her servants, but, thank God, Trinit}' will never wear the political 
chain. 



[ 157 ] 

What is meaner than the attack these traducers of men and destroyers 
of freedom make on the good old gentleman who gives of his abundance 
to the growth of Trinity and to the culture of his people ? More than 
thirty years ago he came from the war to his home, in which there were 
four little orphan children. His property consisted of a few acres of pipe 
clay dirt in Durham county and fifty cents in cash. He began to work 
in this poor dirt to feed his lonely family. He thought for himself and 
worked along new lines. As the years went by he worked harder, econ- 
omized more, till at last he, through toil and business sagacity, owned a 
fortune. Now that he is old and seems to be working along the banks 
of Joidan in search of a crossing place, while he seems so near the border 
land, he gives his money to his church, at whose altars he found God, 
that through Trinity College the young manhood of his native State may 
be blessed, and this crowd of political haters curse his gifts and traduce 
his motive. He is not extravagant, wasting his money in social folly; he 
has not shut it up in bonds; he has not wasted it in sensous living; he has 
not lost it in covetous gambling in stocks, but has given it to build a great 
college in his native State for his own civil kinsmen, and this is met by 
this crowd of society wreckers with curses and strokes. Oh, what will 
be their next step! No, gentlemen, this crowd will never be satisfied till 
they wreck colleges and chain the pulpit to their cars of ruin. The de- 
fendant will welcome death rather than submit. 

I am through. Come to your verdict; but one thing is sure, there has 
been no trickery in this effort. The defendant in this hour has not only 
plead for your college, but for a name which he will hand down to his 
wife and children which is clean Find your verdict, gentlemen, but if 
you go alone the same logical line which the defendant has followed, you 
will not simply vindicate him, but you will charge the whole matter to the 
deep-seated malice of the prosecuting witness. 

Closing Speech of Prosecutor, 

Mr. Chairman and Brethren of the Board of Trustees: 

I do not think it necessary that I take up a great deal of your time in 
discussing the question furtner. I have called your attention to the 
facts in the beginning, that the general charge which we were to sus- 
tain was that of unfitness for the Presidency of Trinity Ccllege. and 
that it consists in certain specified things which have been alleged 
against Dr. Kilgo— that he w^as a wire-puller and guilty of sycophancy ; 
that he had the reputation of being a scrub politician in Tennessee, and 
that he prevented Judge Clark from giving to this Board certain testi- 
mony which he had in his hands, and that he did not want the Judge to 
present certain testimony. 

Now, I do not think it necessary that we prove every one of these 
specifications. What you have to determine is, does the evidence prove 
any two of them, or any one of them, and if we prove any one, does 
that specification sustain the charge, and if so, w^e ask for a verdict of 
guilty. You have all the evidence before you, and it is for you, after 
you weigh all the facts carefully and impartially, to decide whether any 
one of them is sustained by the testimony, and if sustained, then we 
claim that we have made out our case. 

Now, your attention has been called by the defense in his speech, to 
the fact that Trinity College has always been under fire, has waded 
through blood and toil and strife and difficulty, from her infancy up to 
this time. That her first president was a martyr to her, and that there 
never has been a man connected with her as president, that has not 
suffered the same difficulties, the same troubles, and encountered the 
same strife, to fight against wind and tide for every inch of ground 



[ 158 ] 

which he has made. This being true, it becomes this Board of Trustees 
to see to it that no man who has not a first-cl^ss record, that no man 
whose character is not all right, shall have charge of it She has a 
grand history, she stands up to-night as the product of faithful toil and 
self denial, of the struggles of men who have lived and shed their blood 
for her, and we cannot think, as her guardians, for a moment of keep- 
ing in connection with her, in any relation, a man whose character is 
not the finest, best and highest. 

I said this investigation was had by your Board. Of course. Dr. 
Kilgo stated that it was simply a matter of justice to him that the 
Board have it You have given time to consider it, because you should 
not keep any man in connection with the College, whose character is 
not above reproach. I wish to say the prosecution will be entirely 
satisfied with your verdict. I do not nelieve there is a man in this 
Board who is capable of anything other than a righteous verdict. I do 
not care what has been your opinion, I believe every member of the 
Board will reach a rii>hteous verdict. If you reach the conclusion that 
any one of these specifications has been sustained, I believe you will 
say so. 

Now, I wish to call your attention to the fact that you are not to be 
influenced by how it will affect Dr. Kilgo or anybody else connected 
with it. You have simply got to determine the truth, and let the result 
be as it may. Your sympathy and inclinations are not to have any 
weight at all when you come to make up your verdict, and you are not 
to be influenced by your sympathies. You have simply to determine 
what are the facts from the evidence that has been brought you. 

Now, it has been argued by the defense in this case, that the witnesses 
presented to prove the specification that he had the reputation in South 
Carolina of being a political wire-puller and of the ward politician type, 
are without the opportunity of knowing that which they testify to, or 
in some measure were governed by their prejudice. For instance, it has 
been claimed that Mr. Ligon, because he belonged to a different school, 
was prejudiced against Dr. Kilgo. Now, it is very clear, I am free to 
admit, that Mr Ligon is not the best kind of witness. I mean by that, 
he did not put what he had to say in any consecutive, regular order ; 
but Mr. Ligon does state, and state repeatedly, that there were rumors 
and complaints that Dr. Kilgo was a manipulator, and that he wounded 
the f ef^lings of his brethren by his manipulations It is true that he did 
not say that he was a manipulator of the ward politician type, but he 
did say that Dr. Kilgo was a manipulator. 

They contend also, that Mr. Beck with and Mr. Boone did not have the 
opportunity of knowing well that which they testified to. They spent 
only a little time in South Carolina, and did not know Dr. Kilgo's repu- 
tation till they went there. Therefore you musn't give much weight to 
their testimony. You have to determine, after you have weighed all 
these matters, how much weight you are to attach to each witness. I 
think it possible for a man to go through a State, stay eight or ten days, 
and know pretty well about the reputation of any man. But after all, 
that's a question which you are to determine. You are to weigh this 
testimony by the light which is before you. 

Mr. Gattis testified that his reputation in South Carolina was that of 
a manipulator and wire-puller, and of the ward politician type. You 
will bear in mind when you come to weigh Bro. Gattis' testimony, that 
there has been no witness introduced to break down his character. He 
has been a reputable minister of the Gospel, against whose moral char- 
acter there has been no complaint, and j'-ou must give him credit for 
being a man of good moral character, till it is proved to the contrary. 
And he stated emphatically, after his knowledge of three or four years' 



[ 159 ] 

time in visiting Conferences in South Carolina, that is his reputation 
there. 

Now, I do not think it necessary for me to take up your time to discuss 
this matter further. I might elaborate these thoughts and go outside of 
the range of testimon}^ to which I have already called your attention, 
and lug in other things. But I have simply striven honestl}' and fairly 
to bring to you the testimony that goes to sustain these charges. All 
that I have said ought really not to affect one syllable of the testimony 
that has been given. There is not a man on the Board who is not just 
as capable of weighing the testimony as myself. 

I want to thank you for your patience with my blundering manner. 
This is my first work of this kind, and I have labored under some dis- 
advantages in trying to do it. 

Mr, Southgate's Charge to the Jury, 

You, as Trustees, have been assembled together in the capacity of a 
Committee to investigate the truth or falsity of certain statements of 
vital concern to the character of your employee — the President of Trin- 
ity College, and through him the institution itself. 

It is not only, therefore, your duty, and yours only, as custodians of 
the interests involved, acting in such above stated capacity, to perform 
this work, but it is clearly your legal right from ever3^'Standxjoint of 
justice and honor to sit together, give evidence, hear evidence and, as a 
self-governing body, prescribe the rules and regulations under which 
this shall be done, keeping in mind those well-defined principles and 
laws which have been deduced from the experience of the ages in taking 
and weighing evidence. Those laws are not the property of civil and 
ecclesiastical courts, but belonging to man in his effort to perceive truth 
and conceive the claims of justice. In the matter before you, the sole 
condition other than these which abridges j^our widest effort in arriving 
at an honest just determination is that you should not let any matter of 
your own knowledge, and which lias not been testified to by you, influ 
ence your decision. Let that rest upon the valid evidence. 

OFFICIAL STATEMENT. 

In the matter of Dr. John C. Kilgo, President of Trinity College. 
Charge: That he, John C. Kilgo, is unfit to be President of Trinity 
College. 

SPECIFICATIONS. 

1st. That Dr. Kilgo intended to prevent Judge Clark from having an 
opportunity to produce evidence before a former meeting of Trustees. 

'2nd. Sycophancy to Mr. Washington Duke, in that he recently led a 
procession to Mr. Duke's house and extolled him as the greatest man 
this State has ever produced. 

3rd. That Dr. Kilgo has received personal gratituity from Mr Duke. 

4th. That Dr. Kilgo's reputation in South Carolina is that of a wire- 
puller of the ward politician type. / 

5th. That Dr. Kilgo was in Tennessee and was known there as a scrub 
politician. 

The evidence is before you in such form as will enable you to review 
any portion, or all of it, by refreshing your memory. With this under- 
standing it is not necessary for me to review it as this juncture. 



[ 160 ] 

(1) The]obligation of proof lies on the party making the allegation; in 
this case the prosecution. 

(2) Consider only the evidence which corresponds to the specifications, 
that it may be confined to the point at issue ; it is not necessary that it 
bear directly on the case, but should be considered if it tends to prove 
the issue or constitutes a link in the chain of proof, although alone it 
might not justify a verdict in accordance with it. 

(.3) You will consider the evidence sufficient if the substance only of 
specifications be proved. 

(4) Concerning hearsay evidence, to which reference has several times 
been made in these proceedings, it is generally considered insufficient to 
establish any fact which can be proven by living witnesses. It is 
re;-'arded as indispensible as a test of truth and to the ends of justice 
that every living witness should, if possible, be subjected to the ordeal 
of a cross examination, that it may appear what were his powers of 
perception, his opportunity for observation, his attentiveness in observ- 
ing, the strength of his recollection, and his disposition to speak the 
truth. 

It sometimes happens, however, that words heard and testified to in 
investigations of charges involving slander, blasphemy or evil speaking, 
or in such cases where words spoken may be natural concomitants of 
the principal facts in controversy, do not come within the meaning of 
hearsay evidence, but are original and independent facts, admissible in 
proof of the issue. 

It is your province to ascertain the facts developed by the evidence 
and look back of the facts to the causes producing them, consider the 
circumstances surrounding the investigation, the probable or improba- 
ble nature of the facts detailed, the character of the witnesses, the 
manner of their giving testimony ; all this must be taken into your con- 
sideration and carefully weighed before coming to a conclusion. 

In making up your decision, answer in writing : 

1. Whether each of the specifications has been sustained. 

2. If any or all of them have been sustained, whether the charge of 
unfitness is proved. 

You will render your decision in writing and have it signed by all 
who vote in the majority, and a majoritv vote will decide. 

The Trustees sitting as a jury took the case and after they had agreed 
on their verdict the Chairman was notified and reentered the room and 
called the meeting to order. The following verdict was rendered through 
Rev. A. P. Tyer and the Secretary was directed to enter the same in the 
minutes of the meeting : 

The Verdict. 

In the matter of Dr. John C. Kilgo, President of Trinity College: 

Charge: 

That he, John C. Kilgo, is unfit to be President of Trinity College. 

Specifications: 

1st. That Dr. Kilgo's reputation in South Carolina is that ot a wire- 
puller of the ward politician type. 

We find this specification not sustained. 



[ 161 ] 

2d. That Dr. Kilgo was in Tennessee and was known there as a scrub 
politician. 

We find this specification not sustained. 

3d. Sycophancy to Mr, Washington Duke, in that he recently led a 
procession to Mr. Duke's house and extolled him as the greatest man 
this State has ever produced. 

We find this specification not sustained. 

4th. That Dr. Kilgo has received personal gratuity from Mr. Duke. 

We find this specification not sustained. 

5th. That Dr. Kilgo intended to prevent Judge Clark from having an 
opportunity to produce evidence before a former meeting of the Trustees. 

Charge: 

That Dr. Kilgo is unfit to be President of Trinity College. 

We find the Charge not sustained. 

(Signed) Andrew P. Tyer, 
B. N. Duke, 

F. A. Bishop, 
E. J. Parrish, 
W. H. Branson, 
W. R Odelli,, 

G. W. Flowers, 

W. J. Montgomery, 
John R. Brooks 
S. B. Turrentine. 
W. S. Creasy, 
O. W. Carr, 

N. M. JURNEY, 
T. N. IVEY, 
J. B. HURI.EY, 

W. C. W11.1.SON, 
Dred Peacock, 
John N. C01.E, 
R. H. Parker, 

V. BAI.LARD, 

Report of Committee, 

Rev. J. B. Hurley for Committee to which was referred the paper of 
Judge Clark, submitted the following report: 

Your committee to whom was referred Judge Clark's paper, "challenge 
to the jury," would respectfully report that they have carefully examined 
the same and find it to be adroitly drawn, either to thwart and stop fur- 
ther investigation or for publication in the newspapers for the purpose 
of making political capital. Judge Clark so drafted his paper, as to in- 
clude nearly every trustee, so that none would be left to sit as jurors. At 
the July meeting when Judge Clark so earnestly begged for further time 
to prepare his evidence, did he not know that the trustees must act as 
jurors? He says he knew they were all against him. Judge Clark 
feelingly announced that "if the trustees would give him thirty days he 
would have the evidence, and if the gentleman who gave him the infor- 
mation refused to testify he would say they had lied to him and would 
withdraw the charges against Dr. Kilgo."' Having failed to produce the 



[ 162 ] 

evidence, the men refusing to testify except in a few instances, as he 
says, the evidence brought in is much diminished in quantity. 

Judge Clark instead of withdrawing his charges, challenges the jury 
when he knew they were the only ones to investigate them. Besides 
Judge Clark's statement has many inaccuracies. Revs. F. A. Bishop and 
T. N. Ivey and Messrs. Dred Peacock and W. J. Montgomery deny em- 
phatically that they aided and advised Dr. Kilgo at the investigation on 
July i8th. Rev. N. M. Jurney denies that he is correctly reported. As 
to what Mr. Branson said, the facts are that he did say that he thought 
it was cowardly in Judge Clark to publish charges against Dr. Kilgo and 
when asked for his evidence to say he had none that was legal, but he 
was properly rebuked by the chair and various members expressed in 
unmistakable terms their disapprobation. Your Board respectfully re- 
sents his (Judge Clark's) charge of indecent conduct upon the part of 
said Board. Rev Tyer denies the charges made against him, and the 
statement was not heard by any one except Judge Clark, as far as your 
committee can ascertain. There are various other errors. Judge Clark's 
sonorous sentences as to trusts and Benefactor's Parlor, Duke Building, 
doubly labled, would be more eflfective, if he had not voted to thank Mr. 
Mr. Duke for the donation which paid for them. The trustees have as 
much love for fair trials and impartial juries as Judge Clark, and rever- 
ence the memory of the tortured martyrs as much as he does. 

The trustees have treated Judge Clark fairly, and hope he will not be 
tortured as a martyr. 

J. B. HURI.EY, 

F. A. Bishop, 
Dred Peacock. 

On motion of J. R. Brooks the report of the Committee was adopted. 



[ 163 ] 



APPENDIX. 



[By the direction of the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees 
of Trinity College, we publish the following statements which refer to 
certain extensively published charges of Judge Clark.] 

NORTH CAROLINA— Mecklenburg County. 

Before the undersigned Notary Public personally appeared this day, 
Rev. F. H. Chreitzburg, of the County and State aforesaid, who, being 
by me first duly sworn, deposes and says: 

That he was a member of the South Carolina Conference until Decem- 
ber, 1892 and was a member of said Conference for nineteen years, and 
Dr. John U. Kilgo was a member of said Conference for a long time 
when affiant left said Conference; that during the entire time while affi 
ant and Ur Kilgo were members of said Conference, and ever since that 
time, only the most cordial relations of love and friendship have existed 
between Dr. Kilgo and affiant; that affiant never made the statement to 
any one that there was at any time any lack of cordialitj- between Dr. 
Kilgo and affiant was greatlj' surprised at the statement made by Judge 
Clark in his address lately published in the JSeics and Observer to the 
effect that it seemed that affiant and Dr. Kilgo had not always been on 
as cordial terms as they are at present. 

Affiant further avers that, not only was Dr. Kilgo among his closest 
friends at the time affiant left the Soutii Carolina Conference, but Dr. 
Kilgo was most urgent in importuning affiant to remain as a member of 
the South Carolina Conference. H. F. Creitzburg. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this the 16th day of September, 
1898, and witness my hand and Notarial Seal. 
(Seal.] F. M. Shannonhouse. 

Notorv Public. 



RoxBORO, N. C, September 13, 1898. 

We the undersigned citizens of Person County, heard the Educational 
address of Dr. John C. Kilgo delivered at the New Hope District Con- 
ference. We have heard the remarks attributed to him on that occasion. 
This is it, as we remember and we think our memory distinct : He did 
not speak of the farmers as calamity howlers, but he did denounce that 
class of men who moved to town with their families and while the wife 
was at home in the wash tub and the children in the factory, the husband 
and father sitting on the street whittling on goods-boxes crying sixteen 
to one, that such men deserved sixteen to one with a buggy trace. 

(Signed,) C. B Brooks, 
G. D. Stephens, 
R. H. Broom, 
Secretary Durham District Conference. 

I heard Mr. G. D. Stephens speak of the above speech just after deliv- 
ered. It is here stated as he then told me. He was speaking in praise 
of the speech. (Signed,) L.H.Daniel, 

Official position. United States Commissioner. 



[ 164 ] 

The following statements in the News and Observer will explain itself : 

To THE Editor : — In Judge Clark's speech published in your paper 
issued yesterday, he drags a false statement into his utterances concern- 
ing Col. J. S. Carr, of Durham. Just why Judge Clark should resort to 
such methods I am unable to say. He never asked me about this matter, 
nor was it in any way involved in the investigation. 

While the marshals were decorating the hall for the last commence- 
ment I was busy in my ofifice preparing my report for the trustees. I was 
requested to go to the hall and settle a dispute that had arisen. I did 
not know the cause of the dispute, but when I reached the hall, I found 
that it was concerning a picture of Col. J. S Carr. I said to the mar- 
shals: "Take the picture back to the Society Hall. We will not hang it." 
This was the only remark made, as Prof R L. FJowers and Dr. W. P. 
Few will state, both being present. The only object in view being to ad- 
just a little controversy. No such unkind remark as Judge Clark reports 
was made of Col. J. S. Carr. It happened to be his portrait, otherwise 
the same thing would have been done concerning any other portrait. 

Col. J. S. Carr has bestowed rich benefactions on Trinity College, and 
it has never been the aim of the college to wound him, but orders have 
always been given to invite him to the rostrum. His benefactions have 
always been recognized and appreciated as the literature of the college 
will show. I make this statement because it is due Col. Carr and myself. 
Col. Carr has not been a party to this controversy, and the attempt to 
falsely drag him into it is a scheme unworthy of any one. 

While on this matter I wish to say that I have never said anything to 
reflect on the high character of womanhood. I consider woman with 
the sanctity too high to drag her before the public to satisfy a spirit of 
malice. 

JNO. C. K11.GO. 

P. S. — Since writing the above I have learned that the portraits of 
Messrs. B. N. Duke and J. H. Southgate were taken out at the same time 
and were not hung in the hall. 

Trinity College, N. C, Sept. 5. J. C. K. 



We were on the decorating committee at the last commencement. A 
dispute arose between two ladies as to the position in which Col. Carr's 
picture should be hung. Dr. Kilgo was sent for to settle the dispute. 
We do not remember the exact words of Dr. Kilgo, but he said, in sub- 
stance, take the picture back to the hall, we will not hang it. We do 
know that Dr. Kilgo did noi say that "picture is not fit to be put in a 
cellar." We had other pictures besides Col. Carr's which were taken 
down and returned. 

We make this statement without the knowledge or consent of Dr. Kilgo. 

jNO. K. Wood, 
Fred. W. Ayers. 



I have read the published statement of Judge Clark's in regard to the 
incident connected with Col. Carr's picture. I went with Dr. Kilgo to 
the chapel and remained all the time he was there. The statements at- 
tributed to him are false, and the whole affair perverted. Dr. Kilgo's 
statement in the News and Observer explains the incident. 

R. L. Fi^owERS. 



[ 166 J 

The following from the Morning Pest, Raleigh, N. C, Sept. 13, 1898, 
needs no explanation. 

THE ''diamond ring." 

We, the undersigned, beg to submit that we were present and heard 
the lecture of Dr. John C Kilgo, delivered here October 30, 1896. The 
Doctor was here by special "request, and his address was merely a liter- 
ary one. We were highly entertained by his able, learned and polished 
discourse. To the "diamond ring episode," about which so much has 
recently been published, we confess we took no exception. If there was 
any part of his speech disrespectful about ladies, we didn't hear it. On 
this and many other occasions we have had the pleasure of hearing Dr. 
Kilgo, judging by the lofty sentiment of his speeches and what we know 
of the man himself, our opinion of him is that he would be about the last 
person in the world to say anything derogatory of woman. 

(Signed) Mrs. R. I. Featheston, 
Mrs. J. A. i,ONG, 
Miss Anna Webb, 
Mrs. S. B. Winstead, 
Mrs. N. B. Coltrane, 
Miss Maggie Long, 
Mrs. W. H. Harris, 
Mrs. J. S. Merritt, 
Mrs. 'L,. D. Chambers, 
Miss Jessie Webb, 
Mrs. E. G. Thompson, 
Miss Evie Street, 
Mrs. W. E. Webb, 
Miss Fannie Sergeant, 
Mrs. Hugh Woods, 
Miss Bertha Fiei.d, 
Miss Moi.i,ie Brooks, 
R I. Featherston, 

Mayor of Roxboro. 
J. M. WiNSTEAD, 

Cashier of Farmers' Bank. 
J. A. Long, 

President of Peoples' Bank. 
J. S Bradsher, 

Cashier of Peoples' Bank. 
J. S. MERRITT, 
R. E. Long, 
W. R. Hambrick, 
W. H. Harris. 

Note (See Page 52:). 

[The following extract from an interview of Rev. G. A. Oglesby, 
ProsecTitor, published in the Morning Post, will explain she question in 
regard to the stenographer. The request was made baf ore the roll was 
called and before the official stenographer arrived, therefore the notes 
do not refer to the subject.] 

Would you object to giving your imfpressions why the Board refused 
to grant. Judge Clark's request that another stenographer, other than 
Mr. Newsom, be employed? 



[ 166 ] 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

029 923 774 6 



I have only evidence that from a discussion on the matter by the Board 
when the request was made, they said they had an official stenographer, 
very capable and honest, that there could be no necessity for a second, 
and there might be some conflict between them and difficulty in harmo- 
nizing their reports, and for the further reason that such reqest was a 
reflection upon the integrity both of the Board and their stenographer. 

Was Mr. Newsom, the official stenographer, sworn? 

He was not, nor any of the witnesses present and testifying. 

Why was not this done? 

It was purposed by the Board to take every man's word as if he were 
under oath, and the chair ruled that the implied oath in such an inves- 
tigation, was just as strong or even stronger than one administered by 
an official authorized to do so. 

Did Judge Clark ask that the stenographer be sworn? 

I don't recall that he said anything about it. 

On whose motion was the matter brought up? 

Rev.N. M. Jurney. 



i